“The Love that Dare Not Speak its Name” – The Queerness of Horror

Diplomarbeit

Zur Erlangung des Magistergrades an der Anglistik/Amerikanistik Fakultät der Paris-Lodron- Universität Salzburg

Eingereicht von Nicoline Schönhofer 01220351

Gutachter: Univ. Prof. Dr. MA. Ralph Poole

Fachbereich: Anglistik und Amerikanistik

Salzburg, Mai, 2018

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank those who have motivated me not only through the process of writing this diploma thesis but also who supported and encouraged me on my journey from receiving my high school diploma to graduating university.

Univ.-Prof. MA. Dr. Ralph Poole, who rekindled my love for film during my last class of my college career and made me curious about the queer world of horror. I especially want to thank him though for taking time out of his busy schedule and being my supervisor for this thesis even though he is currently on sabbatical leave.

My mother, who I owe so much too, as she has always been my biggest supporter in everything I set my mind on. She made it possible for me to study abroad in the United States for a year at the young age of fifteen, which shaped me into the person I am today and encouraged me to gain more independence and to expand my horizon even further by participating in another exchange after my third year of college. For these experiences I am very grateful. I also want to thank her for accepting me for who I am and giving me advice when I needed it.

My father, who has never failed to encourage me to chase after my dreams and that everything is possible if I work hard enough, and also for always knowing how to lift me up when I am down.

My stepfather, who explained the world to me and can always give me answers to life’s mysteries. But most importantly I want to thank him for loving me like one of his own and the bond we share.

My grandmother for dedicating her life to her grandchildren and gifting my brother and I with the most glorious childhood a kid could ask for, and for always listening to the endless stories I insisted on telling her. 2 | Page

All my friends, old and new ones, who I laughed and cried with, and who I will continue to conquer the hardships life throws at us, as we take our final steps into adulthood. For the countless memories I have collected on the way and will cherish for a lifetime.

Salzburg, May 2018 Nicoline Schönhofer

3 | Page

Eidesstattliche Erklärung Hiermit versichere ich an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Magisterarbeit ohne fremde Hilfe und ohne Benutzung anderer als der angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel angefertigt und die den benutzten Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe.

Die vorliegende Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form noch nicht als Bachelor-/ Master-/ Diplomarbeit/ Dissertation eingereicht.

______(Ort und Datum) (Unterschrift)

4 | Page

Zusammenfassung Diese Diplomarbeit beschreibt die Konstruktion von Homosexualität in den 1930er Jahren, um einen Einblick in das homophobe Umfeld zu geben, in dem die damaligen Regisseure arbeiten mussten und wie die auferlegten Regeln und Einschränkungen der „Production Code Administration“ solche Werke beeinflussten. Ein Diskurs über eine geheime lesbische Gemeinschaft legt nahe, dass Homosexualität häufiger und weiter verbreitet war als vermutet und bietet ein Beispiel dafür, wie queere Gruppen dieser Zeit mit der heteronormativen Gesellschaft interagierten. Darüber hinaus werden wichtige Begriffe der Queer-Theorie definiert und eine Erklärung gegeben, wie „Queer“ gelesen werden kann. Außerdem werden die seltsamen bzw. queeren Eigenschaften, die im Horror-Genre zu finden sind, beschrieben, um die zugrunde liegenden Themen zu zeigen, die oft impliziert werden. Ein weiterer Diskurs über die „Queerness“ von Vampiren dient als wichtiges Instrument bei der Analyse dieser These. Die Analyse ist der wichtigste Teil dieser Arbeit und beschäftigt sich mit der „Queerness“ von James Whales Horrorfilm The Old Dark House, welcher 1932 produziert wurde. Sie konzentriert sich auf drei Teile, nämlich die queeren Charaktere des Films, die Interaktionen, die als queer gelesen werden können, und die Frage, ob die Schurken der Geschichte mit den Charaktereigenschaften eines typischen gotischen Bösewichts übereinstimmen. In den Ergebnissen wird deutlich, dass die analysierten Charaktere alle eine gewisse „Queerness“ aufweisen bzw. ausstrahlen und dass ihre Interaktionen miteinander im übertragenen Sinne die Darstellung von Homosexualität in der Zeit, in der der Film produziert wurde, zeigen. Sie können als Sticheleien gegen diese heteronormative Gesellschaft angesehen werden, die Whale dazu benutzt hat, solche verzerrten Ansichten über eine von der Norm abweichende Sexualität zu kommentieren. Das letzte Unterkapitel über die Bösewichte des Hauses bestätigt, dass sowohl Morgan als auch Saul die Elemente erfüllen, die normalerweise in einem gotischen Bösewicht vorkommen. 5 | Page

Abstract This diploma thesis describes the construction of homosexuality in the 1930s to give insight on the homophobe environment directors of the time had to work in and how the imposed rules and restrictions by the Production Code Administration affected such works. A discourse on a secret lesbian community suggests that homosexuality was more prevalent and widespread than suspected and offers an example of how queer groups of the time, interacted with the heteronormative society. Furthermore, important terms to queer theory are defined and an explanation on how to ‘read queer’ is given. In addition, the queer characteristics that can be found in the horror genre are described to show the underlying themes that are often implied. Another discourse on the queerness of vampires serves an important device in the analysis of this thesis. The analysis is the most essential part of this thesis and deals with the queerness of James Whale’s 1932 horror film, The Old Dark House. It focuses on three parts, namely, the queer characters of the film, the interactions that could be read as queer and the question if the villains of the story match the character traits of a typical gothic villain. It becomes clear in the results, that the analyzed characters all exhibit some form of queerness and that their interactions with one another figuratively serve as outlets to show the representation of homosexuality in the era the film was produced in. They can be taken as jibes against this heteronormative society, which Whale used to comment on such distorted views of a sexuality deviating from the norm. The final subchapter on the villains of the house confirm that both, Morgan and Saul fulfill the elements usually found in a gothic villain.

6 | Page

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 9

2. HOMOSEXUALITY – COLORING OUTSIDE THE LINES ...... 11

2.1. THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE 1930S ...... 11

2.1.1.MORE COMMON THAN SUSPECTED – A LOST STUDY ON LESBIANISM (BULLOGH 895-904) ...... 12

2.2. HOMOSEXUALITY FROM A MEDICAL STANCE ...... 15

2.2.1.PIONEERS: KARL FRIEDRICH OTTO WESTPHAL, KARL HEINRICH ULRICHS,

HAVELOCK ELLIS, AND MAGNUS HIRSCHFELD ...... 15

2.2.1.1.KARL FRIEDRICH OTTO WESTPHAL...... 16

2.2.1.2.KARL HEINRICH ULRICHS...... 16

2.2.1.3.HAVELOCK ELLIS ...... 17

2.2.1.4.MAGNUS HIRSCHFELD...... 19

2.2.2.CRITICS: SIGMUND FREUD AND WILLIAM STEKEL ...... 22

2.2.2.1.SIGMUND FREUD ...... 23

2.2.2.2.WILLIAM STEKEL...... 24

3. THE QUEERNESS OF HORROR ...... 26

3.1. HOMOSEXUALITY IN FILM ...... 26

3.1.1.JAMES WHALE ...... 26

3.2. RULES AND CONVENTIONS OF THE HORROR GENRE ...... 35

3.2.1.THE HAYS CODE ...... 35

3.2.2.RESTRICTIONS THAT BACKFIRED ...... 38

3.2.3.THE GOTHIC (QUEER) VILLAIN ...... 39

3.2.3.1.CHARACTERISTICS ...... 39

3.2.3.2.QUEER CHARACTERISTICS ...... 40

3.3. QUEER THEORY – READING QUEER ...... 41

3.3.1.A VAMPIRE’S BITE – A KISS IN DISGUISE ...... 44

3.3.1.1.THE BITE AS A SEXUAL ACT ...... 44

7 | Page

3.3.1.2.A QUEER INTERPRETATION OF VAMPIRISM – “ISN’T IT OBVIOUS?!” ...... 46

4. ANALYSIS ...... 50

4.1. WHALE’S QUEER WORK ...... 50

4.1.1.THE OLD DARK HOUSE ...... 50

4.1.1.1.BACKGROUND ...... 50

4.1.1.2.THE QUEER CHARACTERS IN THE OLD DARK HOUSE ...... 51

4.1.1.3.INTERACTIONS THAT COULD BE READ AS QUEER ...... 63

4.1.1.4.THE VILLAINS OF THE OLD DARK HOUSE ...... 74

4.1.1.4.1.CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOTHIC VILLAIN ...... 74

4.1.1.4.2.QUEER CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOTHIC VILLAIN ...... 77

4.1.1.4.3.DOES THE VILLAIN MATCH THE GOTHIC VILLAIN? ...... 78

5. CONCLUSION ...... 79

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 81

8 | Page

1. Introduction

Even today, in 2018, homosexuality is confronted with resistance and members of the LGBTQ community still have to face discrimination, and inequalities in the workplace and everyday life. However, things do have changed as June 26th, 2015 now marks the historical day of the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states of the United States (BBC), and also the visibility and awareness of especially the younger generation has been growing immensely (Robertson).

Even though there are still more steps that need to be taken, society has come very far. But it has not always been like that. The 1930s were a time of oppression and deviations from the norm, such as homosexuality were scarcely talked about. Queers had to live a double life to conform to the standards and could certainly not be as open as it is possible nowadays in the western world. Director James Whale was amongst those people that had to hide their identity because if they did not, it could have ruined their jobs and reputation (Russo 45).

This thesis discusses the undeniable queerness of the horror genre and gives a closer look on James Whale’s works as a director, laying the focus on one of his masterpieces The Old Dark House, which was long lost and not available to the public until several decades later (Williams).

Divided into three main parts, the first one concentrates on the construction of homosexuality in the 1930s and moreover, talks about the now outdated views on gender and sexuality from that period and how the LGBTQ community had no representation during this era – except in the connotative sphere of horror movies. Pioneers in sexology like Magnus Hirschfeld or Karl Heinrich Ulrichs gave this group of people a voice and dedicated their work to

9 | Page

proof that homosexuality is real and something natural that does not have to be treated (Mancini 60-61).

The second chapter dives right into James Whale’s life, who was an openly gay director that refused to stay in the closet. Ahead of his time, he let the queer monster off its leash and continuously ‘hid’ numerous jibes against the heteronormative society in his movies. He did so by intentionally employing queer actors and leaving much up for interpretation (Benshoff 41). Furthermore, terms like gay sensibility or camp are defined as they are essential to understanding Whale’s works and being able to read them the right way. This section, also gives insight on the restrictions the Production Code Administration (also Hays Code) imposed on filmmakers of that time and how it changed the film industry. They should help the reader grasp in which environment directors of the time had to work in. The discourse on the queerness of vampirism, serves as a device for the analysis of the film, The Old Dark House.

The final part of this thesis provides the reader with a background of the film and its reception after its first and second release but more importantly offers a detailed analysis and interpretation of the queer aspects of Whale’s 1932 horror flick.

10 | Page

2. Homosexuality – Coloring Outside the Lines

2.1. The Construction of Homosexuality in the 1930s Back in the 1930s, the definition of homosexuality deviated from the one we are familiar with nowadays. During this era, homosexuality in general was more described as gender deviance instead of the choice of sex of one’s sexual partner (Benshoff 31).

Homosexual behavior was marked by the deviation from the cultural norms of masculinity and femininity. Similar to the stereotypes that still exist today when it comes to homosexuals, on the one side of the spectrum it was the unmasculine man with a feminine touch that was considered gay and caught the attention of the public eye. He was not as assertive and strong as a ‘normal’ man and was often referred to being a pansy. On the other side was the masculine lesbian, who was considered butch and manly and who did not perform the typical ‘woman’s role’ of caring for her husband and kids, and on top of that also managing the household. She would be seen as ‘one of the boys’ and maybe take on a man’s job like working on a construction site because she was stronger than her heterosexual female counterpart. Such people, whose gender deviated from their biological sex, were identified as homosexuals. Stereotypes like these were perfect conditions to flourish ideas like homosexuality being a result of this deviation, therefore believing every gay man to be very feminine and every lesbian to be very masculine (Benshoff 31).

Interestingly, men whose gender and sex seemed to be in proper alignment but still had same-sex relationships with other men were still seen as ‘normal’. The fact that they had intercourse with other men was ignored. This could have been due to them not being overly flamboyant and conforming to

11 | Page

the norm of how a man should dress and especially act in public (Benshoff 31).

2.1.1. More Common than Suspected – A Lost Study on Lesbianism (Bullogh 895-904) Giving the negative connotations that were (but often still are) attached to homosexuality in the 1930s and the social acceptance it was not granted, Bronski still talked about there being, almost 50 years later, “very little written material explicitly discussing the feelings or attitudes of persons engaged in such activity”, in his publication “Culture Clash”, in which he gives insight on gay culture and its status in society (9).

A seemingly lost study about a lesbian community in the Salt Lake City area in the 1920s and 1930s resurfaced just a few years before Michael Bronski’s book came out, and the results were published by Vern and Bonnie Bullogh in 1977. M.B. (kept anonymous in the study), who was the author of the manuscript was the partner and close friend of one of the publisher’s mothers of this study, who they visited frequently. This resulted in M.B. willing them the unfinished manuscripts of her study after her death for them to publish and for her to contribute to the ‘science of lesbianism’. Considering the rarity of such early accounts of lesbianism, this manuscript should be recognized as quite valuable to queer studies as it contributes to the understanding of how homosexual communities of this period interacted with its heteronormative surroundings. Ironically, this study was conducted, as mentioned above, in the predominantly Mormon state, Utah, led by a religion which is known for its strong belief of homosexuality being a sinful behavior and a disobedience to God.

In her study, M.B. questioned 25 lesbian women, including her partner and herself, which to all she was frequently acquainted with and who were part of 12 | Page

her inner circle, in which they did not have to hide their sexual orientation. What stands out is that all women of the conducted study worked “respectable” jobs and were valued members of society. The author lived in a domestic partnership with another woman, following traditional roles of a heterosexual couple with her taking on the role of the husband and her partner being the “happy wife at home” as she referred to it. Concerning M.B.’s views on same sex relationships, she was an advocate of Havelock Ellis’ and Magnus Hirschfeld’s views of homosexuality being non-pathological and “amplified upon the argument that genetic predisposition, which she believed to be the casual factor in homosexuality, would also make lesbian women have many masculine features” (Bullogh 898). Her beliefs surfaced in the question she asked the subject group, as she analyzed the masculinity of the women’s features and demeanor.

When describing the women, she focused on their physique and their “psychology”, collecting data about their degree of masculinity and femininity, which again underlines “her belief that if there was a biological basis for homosexuality […]” (Bullogh 900) lesbians must exhibit more masculine traits than a heterosexual woman. In her data it becomes evident that the majority of the women she tested had rather masculine features, such being the presence of broad shoulders, small waist and breasts, and also an above average height. The “psychology” as M.B. refers to in her manuscript,

[…] included a role identification in terms of orientation and behavior of either a masculine or feminine type, as well as a preference for sexual partners who were more masculine or feminine. Thus, an individual who enjoyed vigorous outdoor sports and preferred feminine women […] was classified by her as having a masculine psychology. The reverse was also true.

13 | Page

(Bullogh 900)

In their publication, Vern and Bonnie Bullogh mention that ten women were categorized to have a “masculine psychology”, eight a feminine psychology and five to swing between the two models. All women, except one, had occupations that were well-though-of and the desire to be respected and to keep their true selves hidden from their community is clearly evident in the collected data by M.B.. The fact that this small lesbian community was able to hide and stay undiscovered for such a long period, raises the question if lesbianism and homosexuality in general was already more established during the 1930s than other documentations might suggest (Bullogh 901).

The deductions that can be made about this study, according to the two authors are the “existence of significant unreported and unobserved lesbian groups” (Bullogh 903), the importance to conform and to still ‘follow’ the rules of society instead of liberating themselves from the chains of oppression (something which would not have been accepted in any way during that time, especially in Utah), and the effect other people’s opinion about lesbianism being a medical condition had on them. Even though they strongly rejected such beliefs, they still accepted that they were different than ‘normal’ women.

Lastly, regarding the existence of such lesbian groups, I want to address a very interesting remark the authors of the newly found study made, namely that the lesbian readings of texts from that period might not have been merely ‘readings’ but actual “hidden accounts of lesbianism” (Bullogh 904). Hinting at the fact that some female writers might have had insider knowledge of other lesbian communities no one knew about, such as the Salt Lake City group, that managed to hide their sexual orientation so well. Unfortunately, there is no solid proof to back up this claim, but it does open 14 | Page

up a new perspective for the portrayal of certain female characters in fiction writing from the 1930s.

2.2. Homosexuality from a Medical Stance Already over 100 years ago, psychoanalysts, doctors, sexologists, etc. took on the quest of researching the depths of human sexuality and those deviations that they could not explain (Ellis 65-74). The formidable challenge was managing to not leave loose ends and repeatedly running into critics refuting their claims. As an example of this could be taken Magnus Hirschfeld and Sigmund Freud, whose ideals and views were on two different sides of the spectrum - one believing homosexuality to be something natural and the other a phase of growing up or a third party claiming it to be a pathological problem that needs treatment (Benshoff 32). There were many opinions and theories of which some were pretty plausible but then also others that were simply rude to the LGBTQ community. A crucial aspect of the time, one that has many opponents in modern-day society and which is very saddening, is that in the 1920s and 1930s the belief that homosexuality was a medical condition that needed treatment, was widespread throughout the general public.

2.2.1. Pioneers: Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Havelock Ellis, and Magnus Hirschfeld Challengers of this idea that homosexuality was a medical condition that needed treatment were on the one hand, for example, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld. They believed it to be something “inborn and natural” and referred to it as “a predisposed ‘third sex’” (Benshoff 32). They attempted to demonstrate the limitations of the one-dimensional view on gender and that it is not binary but multidimensional – providing a spot for everyone, on that wide spectrum of sexuality.

15 | Page

2.2.1.1. Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal Westphal, who was a respectable professor of psychiatry from Berlin, published a paper called, Die konträre Sexualempfindung (Eng. “contrary sexual feeling”) as early as 1870 (qtd. in Ellis 65).

In his publication, he refers to a case study about a girl, who, starting at a young age, partook only in typical ‘boys’ games, rejected clothes for girls and instead dressed like a boy, and was sexually attracted to “only” (Ellis 65) women. The girl was described to have reacted to the presence of other girls but that she was absolutely unmoved in the presence of boys.

The psychiatrist’s relationship with his patients differed to those of others in his profession. In his book, Sexual Inversion, Havelock Ellis’ points out Westphal’s “keen scientific insight with a rare degree of personal sympathy for those who came under his care” (65) and Ellis further stresses that “it was this combination of qualities which enabled him to grasp the true nature” (65) of a case like this, “which by most medical men at that time would have been hastily dismissed as a vulgar instance of vice or insanity” (65). Westphal insisted upon the fact, of this deviation being “congenital” (Ellis 65) and “not acquired” (Ellis 65).

2.2.1.2. Karl Heinrich Ulrichs Another pioneer and advocate of same-sex love was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, who unlike others, was not a doctor or psychiatrist but still had a wide- ranging knowledge about sexual inversion and was homosexual himself. When Ulrichs first started to publish works on this matter in 1864, he used the pseudonym “Numa Numantius” (Ellis 67) to hide his identity – similar to the Brontë sisters who adopted male pseudonyms, as female writers were not as accepted as their male counterparts. Later, as he continued his work on the depths of sexual inversion, he used his real name and “made various 16 | Page

attempts to obtain a revision of the legal position of the sexual invert in Germany” (Ellis 67). About Ulrichs, Ellis also adds that even though his works and publications “did not carry much scientific weight” (67) as he did not have any sort of education in this field, his views on sexual inversion were still widely accepted and celebrated and are known to have influenced Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal’s views and even steered him towards this subject (67).

He dedicated his works to developing and giving meaning to the terms “urning” (Ellis 68) and “a dioning” (Ellis 68) to which the latter refers to a “normal heterosexual lover” (Ellis 68) and the other to a “homosexual lover” (Ellis 68). Both terms allude to Plato’s “Uranos” (qtd. in Ellis 68). Homosexuality, according to him was a “congenital abnormality by which a female soul had become united with a male body – anima muliebris in corpore virili inclusa […]” (Ellis 68). Interestingly homosexuality is only referred to as the love between two men, in the data collected by Ulrichs, presented in Ellis’ book. Most conducted research about this topic, in favor of homosexuality being a valid sexuality, from the 1930s, was indeed mainly about male homosexuals, as also the men who researched it were often gay themselves, such as Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and Magnus Hirschfeld (Ellis 68).

2.2.1.3. Havelock Ellis The groundbreaking book, Sexual Inversion, volume II of VI of the Studies in the Psychology of Sex from 1915, closely examines and studies various different angles of homosexuality and its causes. All six volumes were published by Havelock Ellis, a medical practitioner, who unlike many others of his time intensively researched “sexual inversion” (Ellis 66), as he called it, and distanced himself from views claiming it to be a pathological inclination. Ellis praises Magnus Hirschfeld’s extensive work in this field of study and notes that “as it now presents itself, it [sexual inversion] is a 17 | Page

psychological and medicolegal problem so full of interest that we need not fear to face it, and so full of grave social actuality that we are bound to face it” (74). He does refer to it as a problem but accepts the pertinence and validity of it, already in 1915.

What is “sexual inversion” according to physician, Havelock Ellis? Before giving his definition, I want to show the ambivalence in his views as previously hinted at and the widely differing views within the people researching this field. He points toward some interesting questions, which people should keep in mind (as stated by Ellis) when trying to define homosexuality or when disagreeing with someone else’s view, to which the thought process is laid out below:

What is sexual inversion? Is it, as many would have us believe, an abominably acquired vice, to be stamped out by prison? or is it, as a few assert, a beneficial variety of human emotion which should be tolerated or even fostered? Is it a diseased condition which qualifies its subject for the lunatic asylum? or is it a natural monstrosity, a human “sport”, the manifestation of which must be regulated when they become antisocial? […] Very widely divergent views of sexual inversion are largely justified by the position and attitude of the investigator. It is natural that the police-official should find that his cases are largely mere examples of disgusting vice and crime. It is natural that the asylum superintendent should find that we are chiefly dealing with a form of insanity. It is equally natural that the sexual invert himself should find that he and his inverted friends are not so very unlike ordinary persons. We have to recognize the influence of

18 | Page

professional and personal bias and the influence of environment. (Ellis 302)

I find his hypothesis plausible considering the period this was written and Ellis lived in, but the mindset people used to have (or some still have) is to me the one that needs to change (and already has to some degree). Since this is the pressing point. It should not matter what “position” (Ellis 302) a person has or “environment” (Ellis 302) a person lives in. Homosexuality or sexual inversion, as Ellis refers to it, should always be viewed the same – something natural and normal.

There were a number of physicians, psychiatrists, etc., Ellis included, who believed sexual inversion to be hereditary as many of his case studies often showed at least one other homosexual family member, which caused him to believe this to be true. For example, a case presented in his book includes a homosexual child who also had a homosexual father, which further strengthened him in this assumption (Ellis 264-265). He calls it “an abnormal manifestation of the sexual instinct” (Ellis preface V) and using the term “inversion” (Ellis 66) puts additional emphasis on him believing it to be an abnormality.

However, he conveyed the impression to be neither for or against homosexuality but as it becomes evident in his book, showed great interest in defining it and finding truths about this “anomaly” (Ellis 70), as he called it.

2.2.1.4. Magnus Hirschfeld Hirschfeld was a forerunner in this field, being a sexologist, gay activist, and also reportedly homosexual himself (Cox), though he is relatively unknown

19 | Page

outside of the LGBTQ community and sexuality studies’ circles (Mancini 1). Even the 2015 Oscar-winning film, The Danish Girl, starring Eddie Redmayne as Lili Elbe and Alicia Vikander as Gerda Wegener, did not mention his work with Elbe as he was written out of the story. Hirschfeld actually met with Elbe before her sex reassignment surgery and was supervising the procedure when she got her testicles removed in Berlin. The reason for his exclusion and not being credited in the film could be largely due the fact that his institute was plundered by Nazi troops in 1933 and most of his works, notes and things he worked on were burned by the Nazi regime, including the notes on his conversations with Lili Elbe, who is now known as the first person to undergo male to female reassignment surgery (even though one has to note, Dora Richter being the first ever documented transgender woman to have their testicles and penis removed and also vaginoplasty, who was also one of Hirschfeld’s patients). Not all of his works got destroyed though. Luckily, Hirschfeld’s partner whom he had met during his time in China and whom he was in a relationship with, was able to save a number of his books. Additionally, Harry Benjamin, one of his students, continued his work in the United States and carried on researching the sexologist’s breakthroughs in this field (Cox).

Hirschfeld believed that homosexuality was something “inborn and natural” (Benshoff 32), which could not be changed or healed and continued the work of his forerunner Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. He stood up for such outsiders, as he was one himself, and raised awareness of the inequalities and unfair treatment people who were attracted to the same sex had to endure. In his work “Sappho and Socrates: or How Does one Explain the Love of Men and Women to People of their Own Sex?” (translated), the German sexologist states, “science may not rest until the legislation changes sanctions, which represent an unnatural barbarity against those who are already more than punished by nature” (qtd. in Mancini 60-61). The punishment of nature, 20 | Page

which pushed the affected people to the outside of society and made them aliens of their own community.

The term “third sex” (Bauer 1) which both, Hirschfeld and Ulrichs, applied in their works derived from Plato’s Symposium, which explains the “three primordial sexes: of mankind: male-male, male- female, and female-female” (Bauer 1). This myth says, that every human being is just one half of a whole and in their search for love, they try to find their other half that they were once separated from as a punishment from the father of the gods, Zeus. According to this, the male-female primordial beings are the reason for heterosexual love and the two other forms are the explanation of why homosexual love exists (Bauer 1).

After one of his patients left him a letter after committing suicide writing, “Please could you educate the public on the bad fate of people like me who are not fit for marriage. Please tell the public everything about us” (qtd. in Cox), Hirschfeld “came to the realization that by disseminating knowledge regarding the different varieties and manifestations of human love he could dispel ignorance and pursue justice for same-sex loving individuals” (Mancini 62). He continued to use his work to change the perception of the “third sex” (Bauer 1).

Furthermore, Hirschfeld opened the first ever institute for sexual research in Berlin, called the “Institut für Sexualwissenschaft” (Institute for Sexology), which was unfortunately also demolished by the Nazi regime in the 1930s. Coining the term “transvestite” (Mancini 1) and dedicating much of his life to this deviation from the cultural ‘norm’, he left his marks in today’s society being a true pioneer in his field and ahead of his time (Mancini & Cox).

21 | Page

“Soon the day will come when science will win victory over error, justice a victory over injustice, and human love a victory over human hatred and ignorance” (“Magnus Hirschfeld”). - Magnus Hirschfeld

2.2.2. Critics: Sigmund Freud and William Stekel Campaigners of the pathological nature of homosexuality to name a few and which will also be discussed are, Sigmund Freud and William Stekel. Both followed the path of thinking that homosexuality needs to be treated and that there is a cure for it. This was common knowledge, even though such claims were never given any solid proof, among psychiatrists of the time.

Benshoff quotes a psychiatrist in his article, “Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film”, who warned the public in 1937 about the precautions that needed to be taken to minimize the chances of giving birth to a homosexual child:

in order to avoid producing homosexual offspring, the father should be an understanding, tolerant, but virile and decisive male. The mother should have the gentleness, patience, and passivity usually associated with womanhood. Any mixture, such as an effeminate father and an aggressive masculine mother is likely to be disconcerting to the child and accentuate homosexual tendencies. (33) Such behaviors that did not follow the social norms and differed from the traditional view on gender, were not only considered a symptom but also a reason for someone being a homosexual that needed to be treated in order to fit the standards of masculinity and femininity (Benshoff 32-33).

22 | Page

The focus of the public eye laid mainly on the appearance and behavior of its people. If someone managed to conform to the standards and followed the duties one had as man or woman or hid one’s sexual orientation, they were not treated as second-class citizens or aliens of society. Any deviation from the norm was the incriminating factor of social suicide (Benshoff 31). For example, the director James Whale, who is discussed in detail in the next chapter, was openly gay and decided to not hide in the closet. He ended up ‘earning’ a spot on Will H. Hays (see 3.2.1 ‘The Hays Code’) black list of people in the film industry that did not abide by the rules of society next to other homosexual actors and directors. As a result, Whale did not direct another movie as the industry’s “hands” were virtually tied and were not allowed to hire him anymore (Russo 45).

2.2.2.1. Sigmund Freud Sigmund Freud and his many followers did not deny that homosexuality was in fact a real thing or not normal, but they did put it off as merely being a bisexual stage in the development into an adult. They described it to be an immature stage some people went through until reaching their full adult sexuality. Psychoanalysts of the time believed that applying Freud’s psychoanalytic approach could treat this phase and helping those people reach “a ‘mature’ stage of sexual functioning” (Benshoff 32).

Every person is different and, in some cases, yes, romantic same sex encounters are only an experimental stage and an outlet on the road to finding oneself. But to many people homosexuality is not a phase. Even though it could be just a stage of growing up, sometimes that phase never ends because it should not have to and that is okay.

23 | Page

Furthermore, Freud describes several stages sexual “inverts” (Ellis 304) go through while growing up, in which they have a “brief fixation on a woman” (Ellis 304) during the first stage. This woman is usually the own mother or sister. Next, “an internal sensor” (Ellis 304) stops them from their wrongful incestuous desires. They are explained to dismiss it by “identifying themselves with women and taking refuge in Narcissism” (Ellis 304) and ultimately their own self becomes the center of their sexual yearnings. The final phase of this process, as Freud concludes it, is that they then search for young men who correspond with features of themselves and “whom they love as their mothers loved them” (Ellis 304). Their sexual inversion is consequently “determined by their flight from women” (Ellis 304).

The second claim, made by Freud, however, does not give an explanation on homosexuality in women, and how this deviation arises according to him.

2.2.2.2. William Stekel Fellow psychoanalyst, William Stekel refuted Hirschfeld’s theories of there being a third sex and that homosexuality was something natural. According to his book, The Homosexual Neurosis, he “associates homosexuality with epilepsy (which he understands not as a somatic disorder but as a ‘particular form of hysteria’), as well as with sadism, masochism, incestuous desires, jealousy, paranoia, criminality, and regression to baser animalistic instincts: all states or aspects of human existence that would more or less comprise the catalog of the classical Hollywood horror film’s themes and obsessions” (qtd. in Benshoff 32). Such themes and obsessions are all character traits usually found in a typical villain in a horror movie. Following Stekel’s thought process and applying his theory to the film industry, poses the question if all villains are gay to a certain extent and if their behavior is queerer than we might have thought? The next subchapter will give a closer look at homosexuality in film and the queerness of its characters. 24 | Page

In his work Stekel concludes that “the homosexual neurosis is a flight back to one’s own sex, induced by a sadistic predisposition towards the opposite sex” (qtd. in Benshoff 32). Thus, he represents the viewpoint that gay men have developed a “deep-seated fear and hatred of women” (Benshoff 33) and lesbians vice versa, a strong revulsion towards men. Gay behaviors that were not accepted by society and seen as anti-social were for example women seeking a career instead of being a housewife. These established dynamics clearly go hand in hand with the “now obvious construction of social definitions of masculinity and femininity […]” (Benshoff 33).

25 | Page

3. The Queerness of Horror

3.1. Homosexuality in Film Although not explicitly shown in pre-Code era and during the Hays Code was in effect, films of that age still tackled such topics that concerned “the love that dare not speak its name” (Douglas). Held captive in a closet by censors, homosexual innuendos still managed to find their way into movies of the above-mentioned period, leaving their marks to be found by the right viewer.

3.1.1. James Whale James Whale, who was born in Dudley in 1889, was a well-known director and actor from England. After enlisting in the army to fight in World War I, he actually started his acting and directing career during his time in a prisoner of war camp where the Germans held him captive (Harvard Film Archive). After successfully directing the play Journey’s End, he was invited to Hollywood to direct the film adaptation of the play, consequently moving to the United States to continue his career as a director. He was a specialist in his genre, gifting the movie world with films like Frankenstein (“Frankenstein (1931)”, IMDb), The Invisible Man (“The Invisible Man (1933)”, IMDb), Bride of Frankenstein (“Bride of Frankenstein (1935)”, IMDb), and of course The Old Dark House (“The Old Dark House (1932)”, IMDb) (Barson).

Being openly gay himself, he was “dubbed the ‘Queen of Hollywood’” (Benshoff 41) and was known for employing also openly gay and gay- seeming actors like Colin Clive, Dwight Frye, Charles Laughton, or Earnest Thesiger, who he knew from his time working at the theater in London. Actor Charles Laughton and his wife Elsa Lanchester who were also close friends of the director, both appeared in his horror movies. Lanchester could be seen taking on roles like Frankenstein’s bride in Bride of Frankenstein (“Bride of

26 | Page

Frankenstein (1935)”, IMDb) and Laughton portraying William Porterhouse in The Old Dark House (“The Old Dark House (1932)”, IMDb). Colin Clive and Dwight Frye, who played Dr. Frankenstein and his assistant, “[…] also convey a certain gay aura in their performances, although each man, like Laughton, was married” (Benshoff 41). Ernest Thesiger, known for his effeminate nature, was also one of Whale’s ‘queer friends’ and was a part of his movies several times. Even though there is no written record of these actors actually being gay, one can make deductions based on the characters they played and their performances, which can be easily interpreted as queer or gay (Benshoff 41-42).

Known for being an openly gay director in this era was very uncommon and definitely a way of life that was not accepted, not even in Hollywood. Although, Whale had directed critically acclaimed movies that are now known as classics, his career came to an early end in 1942. As gay film historian Vito Russo quotes director Robert Aldrich “Jimmy Whale was the first guy who was blackballed because he refused to stay in the closet … and he was just unemployed after that – never worked again” (Russo 50). In his book The Celluloid Closet, Russo refers to something called the “doom book”, which consisted of a list of people who worked in the film industry during that time and who, according to the Production Code, did not follow society’s rules and morals. James Whale was named on that list and since homosexuality was a way of life that was not accepted and therefore challenged the public’s morals, it made it virtually impossible for him to keep working. Eventually accepting his fate, he did not direct another movie and dedicated the rest of his life to painting until his death in 1957 (Russo 45).

3.1.2. Gay Sensibility A ‘gay sensibility’ becomes very apparent in Whale’s numerous horror movies, which all have an undeniable queer innuendo. In his book, Benshoff 27 | Page

describes the term as “the sensibility of a man who recognizes his status as a sexual outsider, someone who acknowledges his difference from the heterosexualized hegemony, and uses that distanciation as a way to comment upon it. One of the ways the gay community has traditionally done this is through campy black humor, and Whale’s work is no exception. His films are filled with jibes against Christian morality and heterocentrist pretension” (41).

Jack Babuscio offers a similar definition in his essay “Camp and Gay Sensibility” stating that he sees ‘gay sensibility’, “as a creative energy reflecting a consciousness that is different from the mainstream; a heightened awareness of certain human complications of feeling that spring from the fact of social oppression […]” (121). He continues with society’s habit of labelling things, like classifying heterosexuality as the norm and homosexuality as a deviation from this norm. Babuscio concludes his take on ‘gay sensibility’ by summarizing his thoughts saying that “out of this process of polarization there develops a twin set of perspectives and general understanding about what the world is like and how to deal with it. For gays, one such response is camp” (121). A definition of the term ‘camp’ will be provided in the following subchapter.

A ‘gay sensibility’ therefore offers a conscious perception of homosexuality and its standing in society as an outcast. Thus, with this sensibility and awareness of homosexuality’s status, people like Whale comment on this inequality and imbalance with humor or other jibes against heterocentrist views and values.

3.1.3. Camp ‘Camp’ is a term mostly used within and associated with queer culture and “describes those elements in a person, situation, or activity that express, or 28 | Page

are created by, a gay sensibility. Camp is never a thing or person per se, but, rather, a relationship between activities, individuals, situations, and gayness” (Babuscio 122). The person that exhibits some form of ‘campness’ however does not necessarily have to be gay themselves – an incongruous action or for example demeanor of an individual could be labeled as ‘camp’ (Babuscio 122). According to Babuscio,

the link with gayness is established when the camp aspect of an individual or thing is identified as such by a gay sensibility. This is not to say that all gays respond in equal measure to camp, or, even that an absolute consensus could easily be reached within our community about what to include or emphasize. Yet though camp resides largely in the eye of the beholder, there remains an underlying unity of perspective among gays that gives to someone or something its characteristic camp flavor. Four features are basic to camp: irony, aestheticism, theatricality, and humor. (122)

1) Irony, when it refers to camp is associated with the dichotomy between a person or thing and its typical context it appears in or the usually assigned characteristics society links to it. An example of such an incongruity could be a man with female attributes or the other way around. The essential message of such contradictions however is the conception that homosexuality does not conform, and that society misperceives it as something inappropriate and incongruous. 2) Aestheticism is crucial when it comes to setting the right mood or environment for such irony to be picked up and to flourish. Similarly, to mis-en-scene in a motion picture, where the correct use of color, costumes, camera angle, etc. are the most vital parts when creating a movie that satisfies a creative mind. 29 | Page

3) Another feature of ‘camp’ is theatricality, and “to appreciate camp in things or persons is to perceive the notion of life-as- theater, being versus role-playing, reality and appearance” (Babuscio 125). Such theatricality is connected to homosexuality in the sense of the roles people of the community often have to take on in order to “pass as straight” (Babuscio 125) and to be accepted by society. But also, to keep a low profile as it is very discomforting to stand out or to attract attention (when you do not want to), only because you are doing the most normal of things (such as kissing your partner goodbye) – except those things are unfortunately not normal yet, in today’s society. 4) The last peace to this quartet is humor. It “results from an identification of a strong incongruity between an object, person, or situation and its context” (Babuscio 127). It is a normal defense mechanism to choose humor to deal with things that hurt us because it takes less effort. For example, to crack a joke about the situations gays are put in every day rolls much easier of the tongue than to admit to oneself how hard it actually is to live in such a “hostile environment” (Babuscio 127), namely “with the painfully incongruous situation of gays in society” (Babuscio 128). Share a laugh instead of a tear because of the irony that presents itself, when society labels gays on the one hand as normal citizens that have to pay taxes but on the other denies them the most human of things, that is love.

(Babuscio 122-128)

As there are different opinions and definitions of ideas, I want to give an insight on more than just one person’s thoughts to create a better 30 | Page

understanding of the terms ‘camp’ or the above mentioned ‘gay sensibility’. The opinions may vary slightly but together they form and fill gaps that the others might lack.

Susan Sontag refers to ‘camp’ as a “seriousness that fails”, further explaining herself by stating that it “[…] is art that proposes itself seriously but cannot be taken altogether seriously because it is ‘too much’.” ‘Camp’ is “the love of the exaggerated” and it “sees everything in quotations marks. It’s not a lamp, but a ‘lamp’; not a woman, but a ‘woman’.” She also describes the presence of a double entendre to how things can be sometimes understood. Drawing attention to the notion that things do not always appear to be what they are at first glance. The double take that one should not fail to do, gives a reader or viewer the chance to really understand what is meant or what the intention of the creator was, instead of merely scratching the surface and seeing only the cover (Sonntag).

3.1.3.1. Discussion Even though the gay interpretations of James Whale’s movies are out there after being discussed over and over by many critics, the underlying queer themes are more visible to a homosexual audience than a heterosexual one (Benshoff 37).

When it comes to the discussion whether or not Whale’s works were intentionally camp and shared a gay sensibility the opinions go in two separate directions.

The view, majority of film critics share, when discussing James Whale’s movies, is the gay sensibility all of his movies ultimately seem to share. Also, Harry Benshoff, a published author in the field of queer studies talks about this sensibility that can be found in Whale’s works, in his article “Monsters in 31 | Page

the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film”. The director’s habit of casting gay or gay-seeming actors like Ernest Thesiger, who gave the characters he portrayed very obvious camp elements, also rules in favor of the intentional queerness of his works, many critics propose. Furthermore, Gregory W. Mank, a historian who paints a quite homophobic picture of Whale after interviewing some of his inner circle like Davis Lewis (a former lover of Whale), describes him as “an arch, bitter homosexual, who had created his own public ‘self’ that in time increasingly became a monster” (12). One could assume that Mank is hinting at Whale’s horror movies with this jibe against him and also presenting the idea that Whale himself identified with the monsters he created. This identification between Whale and his monsters again contributes to the opinion of there being some form of gay sensibility and taunts against the heterocentrist place he worked in, in his films. By identifying with the monsters, it could have been a way for him to show and draw attention to the inequalities and misconceptions of queerness in this world, such as the misunderstood monster in Frankenstein.

The second, less common interpretation as I would view it, is the one of Whale not being aware of the homosexual readings his movies had in common even though, most critics would argue otherwise. Friend and fellow producer, Curtis Harrington, described the misconception of there being a gay sensibility deliberately intended by Whale by stating that, “[…] all artists do work that comes out of the unconscious mind and later on you can analyze it and say the symbolism may mean something, but artists don't think that way and I would bet my life that James Whale would never have had such concepts in mind” (Del Valle). He continued by adding, “artists don’t think in terms of psychoanalytic interpretation. And I think the closest you can come to a homosexual metaphor in his films is to identify that certain sort of camp humor” (Del Valle). Curtis does admit to there being a camp humor but notes that camp did not have the same homosexual 32 | Page

connotation in 1934 and 1935 as it does today. He concluded his take on camp by raising the question about how much influence Whale actually had on the script writing process by saying, “[…] and it would be interesting to know how much Whale had to do with the script. Did he say to John Balderston and William Hurlbut, ‘I want you to create the Dr. Pretorius character like this,’ or did they write it, after which Whale then said, ‘Ah. My old friend Thesiger will give it that very special quality.’ I don’t know if it’s the chicken or the egg” (Del Valle). Another person of Whale’s inner circle, namely his former companion, producer David Lewis, also spoke out about this matter in James Curtis’ biography of Whale. Although he was the long- time partner of the openly gay filmmaker he does not share the view of the queer innuendos being intended by him. In Curtis’ piece he insists on James Whale being “[…] first and foremost an artist, and his films represent the work of an artist – not a gay artist, but an artist" (Curtis).

Now, the question is where do I stand on this matter? Is it all just a subjective interpretation somebody made up and brought into circulation because of the sexuality of this producer – or is there some truth to the things claimed in this debate?

After going through numerous articles about this topic I do share the opinion that the queer reading of his movies must have been intended by Whale, and even if more visible to a queer audience, I believe that it is almost impossible that he was not aware of the gay sensibility almost all of his movies shared. However, one does have to take into consideration what two people who knew him better than any critic, film enthusiast or expert in queer studies, believed. I will take it into consideration, yes, but yet am still asking myself what the reasons behind their opinion could have been. The era they grew up in was without a doubt less accepting of the LGBTQ community than where society is now. Thus, for a fellow producer like Harrington to share these 33 | Page

opinions is not a shock, but still somewhat surprising, as he must have been aware of Whale’s sexuality. Likewise, David Lewis jumped on the same train of conclusions and espoused the view of Whale simply being an artist but not a gay one – even though he was a gay artist just like Lewis himself.

I believe it to be extremely naïve and even insulting to accuse Whale of not being aware of what he was writing or producing. Putting off the creative process of writing a script or making a film, or basically anything merely as an unconscious act is not fair to the artist, as I would assume a writer is clearly aware of what he is writing and insinuating. Even if he did not write the entire script himself, he was still the one to set the scene and the one to tell the story through his characters. Stories that had recurring themes of monsters or characters deviating from the ordinary, being outsiders and looking for acceptance or wanting to be loved, screams ‘GAY SENSIBILITY’ from the top of its lungs to me – and of that, Whale must have been aware, when choosing such story lines. To give queerness a voice of its own in his films, there was no need to have an explicit display of homosexuality. Not only because movies showing such acts would not have been accepted by censors but the story itself and the dynamics of his characters spoke volumes – which will be elaborately illustrated in the analysis of this thesis.

The statement of Lewis saying that Whale was “[…] not a gay artist but an artist” (Curtis) is something I fail to comprehend. I am certainly convinced that an artist who identifies as a homosexual is also a homosexual or gay artist – to me there is no in-between. We are who we are, and our identity is not something that can be hidden (easily) or turned off, especially when putting thoughts to paper or expressing an opinion. Every human being is influenced by their identity in some way, whether it is being gay, heterosexual, an orphan, the child of divorced parents, a rape victim, or the child of the president of the United States of America. We are controlled 34 | Page

and/or driven by our identity and experiences in life and with other people – they shape our beliefs and turn us into the person we are. It is that baggage that we carry with us every day and that effects every decision we make. This being said, Whale’s, as I called it ‘baggage’, is his sexuality. One that (still) deviates from the normative beliefs and resurfaces in the motion pictures he created. Even though, it had to be hidden within the realms of implication, if you look close enough and are open to change and to jumping on the bandwagon, you will find a colorful world ahead – one that thinks outside the box and simply sees more and feels deeper.

Nevertheless, there is not a clear answer to which opinion about Whale’s work is the right one, giving that he passed away over 60 years ago and that he cannot be asked to give us a response. Yet, I still want to point out whether intentionally or unintentionally, the gay sensibility is clearly visible in his works and especially stands out to members of the queer community.

3.2. Rules and Conventions of the Horror Genre 3.2.1. The Hays Code The Motion Picture Production Code or Hays Code, named after William H. Hays, came into effect in 1934 and lasted over 30 years until it was substituted with a new revised rating policy with less restrictions and making room for more explicit depictions of certain images. The code included a handful of principles explaining the exact terms and all regulations and restrictions producers had to follow. Disregarding these guidelines led to high fines and revisions of the script to conform to the rules outlined in the code (Almendarez and Hall).

The reason for the creation of the code, why it was necessary and of utmost importance is stated in the appendix of The Motion Picture Production Code,

35 | Page

saying that due to the adding of sound, films were subjected to “new problems of self-discipline and regulation to the [...] industry” and therefore the administration had to “reaffirm the standards” (“The Motion Picture Production Code”).

The following list consists of a comprised version of the above-mentioned restrictions (directly taken from the appendix of The Motion Picture Production Code):

1) Principles a) No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence, the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin. b) Correct standards of life shall be presented on the screen, subject only to necessary dramatic contrasts. c) Law, natural or human, should not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation. 2) Particular Applications a) Crimes against the law These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a desire for imitation. i) Murder ii) Methods of crime iii) Illegal drug traffic iv) The use of liquor (when not required by the plot or for proper characterization b) Sex The sanctity of the institution of marriage and the home shall be upheld. Pictures shall not infer that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing. i) Adultery 36 | Page

ii) Scenes of passion iii) Seduction or rape iv) Sex perversion v) White slavery vi) Miscegenation vii) Sex hygiene viii) Scenes of actual child birth ix) Children’s sex organs c) Vulgarity The treatment of low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil subjects, should be subject always to the dictates of good taste and a regard for the sensibilities of the audience. d) Obscenity Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, song, joke, or by suggestion, is forbidden. e) Dances Dances which emphasize indecent movements are to be regarded as obscene. f) Profanity Pointed profanity or vulgar expressions, however used, are forbidden. g) Costume i) Complete nudity ii) Dancing costumes intended to permit undue exposure or indecent movements in the dance are forbidden. h) Religion i) No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith. ii) Ministers of religion in their character as such, should not be used as comic characters or as villains. iii) Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and respectfully handled. i) National Feelings i) The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.

37 | Page

ii) The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other nations shall be represented fairly. j) Titles i) Salacious, indecent, or obscene titles shall not be used. k) Repellent subjects The following subjects must be treated within the careful limits of good taste: i) Actual hangings, or electrocutions as legal punishments for crime. ii) Third Degree methods. iii) Brutality and possible gruesomeness. iv) Branding of people or animals. v) Apparent cruelty to children or animals. vi) Surgical operations.

(“The Motion Picture Production Code”)

This leaves one with the question, how it was possible to still produce decent movies even though there were that many restrictions on the plotlines. However, director’s such as Alfred Hitchcock still managed to produce films like North by Northwest (“North by Northwest (1959)”, IMDb) and Vertigo (“Vertigo (1958)”, IMDb) or Frank Capra who gifted the film universe with It Happened One Night (“It Happened One Night (1934)”, IMDb), which are still known to be classics.

3.2.2. Restrictions that Backfired Even though, films that were produced before the Production Code had less restrictions and more freedom concerning their contents, gay characters and their representation was mostly connotative. Also, during that era, the rather butch woman and the pansy man were usually as queer as it got, making them not much different from productions after the Code came into effect. However, after the Hays Code became official in 1934, “homosexual characters were banished from the screen, words such as ‘pansy’ and ‘fairy’ 38 | Page

in reference to men were stricken from potential scripts, and homosexual characters ‘officially’ ceased to exist in the manifest world of cinematic representation, banished to the shadowy realms of inference and implication” (Benshoff 35-36).

Ironically, the queer innuendo, the genre developed was a result of the Production Code itself. Instead of representing things like sexual acts, attacks or homosexuality, and showing them on the screen, all of these banned actions and themes had to be implied. For example, when the monster attacks the heroine, the attack itself is not shown, therefore leaving the nature of the attack up to the audience’s interpretation. Since romance and violence were both not depicted on screen, the nature of the attack of the villain or monster could have been either or. But when the damsel in distress was substituted with a male victim being attacked by a male monster, it contributed to the reasons why the genre gained such a gay connotation. Since these depictions were banned from the screen, the board of censors reached their goal and must have felt content, but their hatred acted like blinders and they probably did not notice that they opened the door of the closet just a crack, turning the genre even queerer than it was before (Benshoff 35).

The “’unspeakable’ (or unseen) horrors and the ‘love that dare not speak its name’ moved into closer proximity through the silence imposed by the Production Code Administration” (Benshoff 36).

3.2.3. The Gothic (queer) Villain 3.2.3.1. Characteristics In literature and film, we usually encounter the gothic villain as being a single male who is often accompanied by his male companion. This can be

39 | Page

seen for example in Frankenstein but also in The Old Dark House, in which the villain, Saul, is locked away and only, has the house servant Morgan in his corner (Benshoff 36).

According to Bridget M. Marshall, an English professor at the University of Massachusetts and editor, who wrote an article on this topic, “[…] villains are clearly marked” (161) and “[…] his moral deformity eventually has an outward physical display” (163). The gothic villain’s or monster’s outward appearance is generally not appealing to the reader or audience. They should be appalling, which is reflected in their physiognomy. Furthermore, Marshall also states, “[…] the truly good are always beautiful, while the evil are always ugly” (162). In his 1891 novel The Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde, explains this phenomenon this way, “sin is a thing that writes itself across a man’s face. […] It cannot be concealed. […] If a wretched man has a vice, it shows itself in the lines of his mouth, the droop of his eyelids, the molding of his hand even” (Wilde). While this does apply to the gothic villain and fits the appearance of the denizens and guests of the old house or Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, it cannot be applied to all stories – especially nowadays, where the hero is often the underdog fighting the odds and turning the society’s norms upside down.

Another characteristic of the gothic villain is that they often try to deceive the good characters into thinking they are innocent and therefore hoping that the hero develops sympathy and falls for their foul play (“The Gothic Villain Essay”).

3.2.3.2. Queer Characteristics In Whale’s horror genre the villain typically projects some kind of queerness, not necessarily of homosexual nature but varying from the heteronormative codes. He exhibits this queerness either alone because of his individual 40 | Page

characteristics and behavior or it is shown (connotatively) in the dynamic of the master and his servant (Benshoff 36).

Additionally, “the monstrously queer deviation of the gothic villain is also clearly marked within the text by the presence of an assertively ‘normal’ heterosexualized couple, who serve as the center of a naturalized and normative heterosexual equilibrium which the queer force disrupts” (Benshoff 36). 3.3. Queer Theory – Reading Queer As discussed in Annamarie Jagose’s book Queer Theory, this field of study focuses on the construction of queerness including all it many facets and as well on queer readings of texts or other mediums and what this kind of reading entails. “Queerness” is often used as an umbrella term for homosexuality or other sexual identities that deviate from the norm society has constructed but an exact definition is hard to pin down. This resistance to a single definition is one of its very characteristics because it is different – a variance that is celebrated among its peers in queer and gender studies’ circles. Thus, this different approach to read or understand texts turns a simple pastime activity into an exciting hunt to find these deviations from the norm that are often hidden gems in mass culture productions (Jagosa 1-6).

In mass culture there is no queerness without connotation. They are like two peas in a pod – always appearing together with the other. (Unfortunately) they go hand in hand. Explicit depictions of homosexuality have been and are a rare virtue in this heterocentrist world we live in. They are pushed back into ‘Narnia’s closet’, hiding a colorful ‘unexplored’ new world, every time they dare to take even the littlest step towards its doors. This leaves queer culture with no other choice than slowly pushing through a small crack in the door and transferring their world into the ‘real world’ through the shadowy realms of implications. 41 | Page

‘To read queer’ is finding such queer connotations in supposedly straight texts and reading between the lines. I am intentionally using ‘supposedly straight texts’ to weaken the power that is so often given to that term. Weaken it in a sense to question its validity and truthfulness to what the term really means. I am here questioning if I can really call something a straight text or film even though it was produced by someone of the queer community. And only calling it straight because it was produced in this strange world such artists lived or still live in. With this I am hinting at the movie I am analyzing in this thesis, which is from the gay filmmaker, James Whale, who worked in a time of oppression.

In a world where heterosexuality is the norm, we are forced to read between the lines because our straight society would not admit to a queer theme even if it had it printed on the cover. In his book Making Things Perfectly Queer, Alexander Doty describes that the queerness only stays in its closed closet “[…] as long as we keep thinking within conventional heterocentrist paradigms, which always already have decided that expressions of queerness are sub-textual, sub-cultural, alternative readings, or pathetic and delusional attempts to see something that isn’t there – after all, mass culture texts are made for the ‘average’ (straight, white, middle-class, usually male) person” (Introduction xii). If you are not the “average” (Doty Introduction xii) person, you have been gifted to go beyond such conventions and to have the ability to read texts with an open mind. Accepting the queerness when there is one and in turn also when there is not, reading the texts for what they are and could be – moving away from a heterocentrist view on matters.

Even though I am sharing Doty’s views and am also arguing that queer readings do not necessarily have to be merely sub-textual, it depends on the era texts or movies where produced in. Therefore, it is my opinion that the 42 | Page

degree of connotation and implicit nature of queerness in texts is largely influenced by, as mentioned above, the period and the environment writers had to work in. Looking at the almost ninety-year-old black and white film The Old Dark House and comparing it to a current production like the hit series Riverdale (2016) (“Riverdale”, IMDb), which introduced several gay characters in the first season and even more as the show continued, shows the shift from implicit to an often more explicit representation (although such an open view is not featured in all present-day productions). And it does become apparent that such queer themes are more difficult to discover in older films/ texts than in the latter one. Reason for this is that the 1930s were, which is not surprising, not as accepting of otherness as the twenty- first century. So, when looking at works from the 1930s one does have to consider the conventions, such as the Hays Code, which was discussed in one of the previous sub-chapters, writers had to work with.

However, it was not solely due to a list of rules some important men with big swivel chairs came up with while smoking cigars and emptying an expensive bottle of Whiskey. There were also a certain set of rules and imposed standards by society people lived by. And it was those corresponding values and principles that a large group of people agreed with. There was no room left between the margins for something else next to this heteronormative worldview. For those whys and wherefores, movies from said time had to work with and use implications to depict certain themes – not only of queer nature but also those of monstrosity such as attacks by the villain or monster and sexual acts regardless if they concerned the heterosexual couple or some kind of other constellation (Benshoff 35). Filmmakers conformed to the rules not because they wanted to but because they simply had to in order to be accepted by the Production Code Administration and their viewers (“The Motion Picture Production Code”).

43 | Page

Enthusiasts of these, for the period, atypical topics have to go on a quest in order to find the queer innuendos that are hidden so well by pioneers like James Whale. To the average straight members of society, they are covered by an invisible cloak but to the right audience they are flashing in a colorful light and even if they are hidden, they know where to look and how to reveal them. I am sharing this thought with Doty, and in his book he also sides with Michael Warner on this matter and praises his work. Warner stresses that “you can’t eliminate queerness […]. It’s everywhere” (Warner 19) and Doty adds to this by stating that “the queerness of texts is pervasive and yet not obvious to heterocentrist straights (Introduction xiii).”

As a reader or spectator, one should go beyond of what is depicted on the screen or the sentence on a page. To some it is obvious, and they do not have to go very far but to many it is like looking at a blank space and seeing nothing even though it already shows them everything.

3.3.1. A Vampire’s Bite – A Kiss in Disguise A kiss and a bite – there is often just a fine line between those two encounters between two people or let me call them something more fittingly, lovers. So, when does a kiss turn into a bite or the other way around, a bite into a kiss? The definition or better the answers to those two questions will vary from person to person. I am by no means an expert in biology or sexology, but I am certain that most will agree on both encounters being some form of sexual acts.

3.3.1.1. The Bite as a Sexual Act Seeing a vampire’s bite as a kiss or sexual act is not as far-fetched as one with an innocent mind might think. As described above, there is often only a fine line between a bite and kiss with both being very intimate exchanges.

44 | Page

The sexual nature of these two can be ignored but when “the vampire characteristically sinks his/her teeth into the neck of his/her victim and sucks the blood out […]”, Richard Dyer describes it in his article, “It’s in his kiss”, as “almost perverse not to see it as one” (75).

According to Dyer, biting does in fact count as a sexual act and can be seen as such. Of course, a bite cannot always be put on the same level as a sexual act or forcing one’s teeth through another person’s flesh, but it can be seen as an “extension obviously analogous to other forms or oral sex acts, all of which […] involve contact not only with orifices but with body fluids as well” (Dyer 76). Thus, the bite of a vampire and the sucking of the victim’s blood are turned into something undeniably sexual. Sinking his or her teeth into a victim of his or her choice is not the only reason for its erotic interpretation but also the ‘where’ and ‘when’ cues the reader or spectator to understand it as something more intimate and affectionate. To describe the time frame: the attack of a vampire, as books and films have taught us, often occurs at nightfall as the clock strikes twelve, when the moon illuminates the sky and as a cliché wolf’s howling sets the unsettling mood, ready for something wicked to happen. The sly and lusty creature of the night usually chooses the bed chamber as the venue for its attack, the safe haven where we feel the most private and vulnerable. But also, where, according to society, sexual acts take place – again stressing the sexual nature of a vampire’s bite (Dyer 75-77).

To illustrate the above-mentioned theory of a bite being a sexual act, I will quote a short scene from the most iconic vampire tale, being Bram Stoker’s Dracula from 1897:

The fair girl went on her knees and bent over me, fairly gloating. There was a deliberate voluptuousness which was both thrilling and

45 | Page

repulsive, and as she arched her neck she actually licked her lips like an animal, till I could see in the moonlight the moisture shining on the scarlet lips and on the red tongue as it lapped the white sharp teeth. … Then … I could feel the soft, shivering touch of the lips on the supersensitive skin of my throat, and the hard dents of two sharp teeth, just touching and pausing there. I closed my eyes in a languorous ecstasy and waited – waited with beating heart. (qtd. in Dyer 76)

The sexual manner of the bite as it is described in this text passage, is undoubtedly there and comes forward, when Stoker uses words like “voluptuousness” or “languorous ecstasy” to underline the nature of the act that is following. At this point I want to point out and emphasize that normally when a person is being attacked they would try to leave the scene as fast as possible just like every sane person would. However, in this instance the character is described to wait “with a beating heart” to be bit by the alluring female vampire. Next to the sensual description the deed happens at night, again a parallel to when according to society and common knowledge, sexual acts take place in the bedroom.

3.3.1.2. A Queer Interpretation of Vampirism – “Isn’t it Obvious?!” When vampires choose a victim of the same gender as them it is difficult to deny that queerness arises and is somehow implied, and as discussed in the sub-chapter above, the bite can be understood as some form of kiss or sexual act.

Here I want to quote a short passage from Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire to underline the homosexual reading of vampirism that is created so well by Rice in this scene as the victim of the vampire is like him, male.

46 | Page

Whether or not this was done intentionally or unintentionally here is uncertain:

Never had I felt this, never had I experienced it, this yielding of a conscious mortal. But before I could push him away for his own sake, I saw the bluish bruise on his tender neck. He was offering it to me. He was pressing the length of his body against me now, and I felt the hard strength of his sex beneath his clothes pressing against my leg. A wretched gasp escaped my lips, but he bent close, his lips on what must have been so cold, so lifeless for him; and I sank my teeth into his skin, my body rigid, that hard sex driving against me, and I lifted him in passion off the floor. Wave after wave of his beating heart passed into me as, weightless, I rocked with him, devouring him, his ecstasy, his conscious pleasure. (qtd. in Dyer 76)

Rice describes vividly how the male vampire feels the mortal’s “hard sex” against his body and the voluptuous frenzy he falls into, while emptying his opposite’s veins. A queer notion becomes evident as two males indulge in this sexual act of vampirism.

In another scene of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula”, Jonathan’s longing to be kissed by the beautiful vampire sisters also conveys a queer reading. Accordingly, a queer notion surfaces as it was not usual for the time for a man to long or ask for the kiss of a woman. In my opinion this could be interpreted as a feminine attribute of Jonathan’s character and therefore imply some form of queerness as the males were expected to be the strong, assertive part (Benshoff 31):

There was something about them that made me uneasy, some longing and at the same time some deadly fear. I felt it in my heart

47 | Page

a wicked, burning desire that they would kiss me with those red lips. It is not good to note this down, lest someday it should meet Mina’s eyes and cause her pain; but it is the truth. (Stoker 37)

In his article, Dyer compares vampirism with the social construction of homosexuality and draws several parallels between the two: 1) As already mentioned, the sexual attack of the vampire usually takes place in a private space such as the bedroom at night. He describes the bedroom to be a place where people are the most themselves, vulnerable, and also quite importantly, alone behind closed doors, where they can do as they please without being judged by the outside world. This correlates with sexuality being the most private virtue and mirroring our true selves.

2) Voyeurism comes into play when the vampire is caught in his act or when a character in the story finds out about his true identity. They are being watched without knowing, when they are in their most private, revealing who they really are. Something they were trying to hide so well. Similarly, to a queer person being their true selves in private only to be caught and this privacy being disrupted by an outsider.

3) A ‘straight’ line can be drawn from the secrecy of vampirism to our sexuality that we so often try to hide, especially when it, like homosexuality, deviates from society’s standards and values. A central part of vampire stories is the finding out and revealing their true identity or the reason behind certain happenings, analogous to the live of most gay teenagers trying to hide their true sexuality from family and friends. A life in the closet, always living with the fear of someone opening the doors and finding out.

48 | Page

4) The double life vampires are commonly forced to live is another parallel to a queer lifestyle. Posing as a ‘normal’ human being when they are in public and taking off their mask when they are alone or with their peers. On the same end of the spectrum is the queer teenager that I have previously mentioned, who is trying to hide their sexuality, talking about cute boys in school because it is expected of her and messaging ‘that cute girl’ on Tumblr, as soon as she arrives in her room, her safe space.

5) The shift from the narrator of the story typically being the victim to the narrator being the vampire, telling his or her own story, which occurred in the early 1970s is notable as it also marks how society talked about the queer community. For example, in the earlier cited passages, Stoker’s Dracula does not tell his own story but in Rice’s tale the narration shifts to first person, as the Vampire is being interviewed and talks about his life. The similarity that becomes apparent in this instance is that “this shift […] is surely analogous with the shift, and insistence upon the shift, from homosexuals as persons who are spoken about to persons who speak for themselves” (Dyer 83). They were talked about and had no voice for themselves as society oppressed them and tried to deny their very existence. The shift in literature acted in a way as a gateway for homosexuals towards acceptance, even though the road ahead was long and still is.

(Dyer 76-84)

49 | Page

4. Analysis

4.1. Whale’s Queer Work 4.1.1. The Old Dark House 4.1.1.1. Background James Whale’s The Old Dark House was released almost a century ago on October 20th in 1932. It is known to be a horror comedy from the pre-Code era.

The pre-Code era took place from 1930 to 1934 and was marked by the announcement of the so-called Hays Code in 1930 but the Code did not come into effect until it was enforced by the PCA (Production Code Administration) four years later. Since the code banned “(among other things) the depiction or mention of homosexuality, or ‘sex perversion’” (Benshoff 35), this era is known for its queerness and monstrosity that was later forbidden and therefore pushed back into the closet. Consequently, having to rely on and work with the connotative representation of such themes.

The story of the film is based on J. B. Priestley’s novel Benighted from 1927. Priestley’s psychological thriller was turned into a rather comical and sarcastic horror movie, as one would expect from a James Whale production. Nevertheless, it still gives the audience a chill running down their spine and one or two jumps up from their seats, giving that the denizens of the house are all very mysterious and some even frightening and causing distraught by just merely having a glance at them. Comparing it to a modern-day blockbuster the movie has a rather short running time with only 71 minutes. Still, Whale managed to create a well-rounded story with no loose ends and giving each character a well thought out storyline and a deserving place in the strange mansion (“The Old Dark House”, IMDb).

50 | Page

The reception of the movie was not as well as one would have thought and received very mixed reviews after its first release in the United States. Being pulled after only ten days it could not celebrate the same success as the film did in England. On the other side of the globe, it even turned out to be a record-breaking production. After losing the rights to the movie in 1957, it was considered to be lost in the archives of the Universal Studios. The movie did not resurface until eleven years later, when Curtis Harrington found the movie and commissioned a restoration of the film’s negative and making it available again for today’s audience and avid appreciators of old movies. Compared to its first release that gathered rather lousy reviews the reception of the modern-day audience was significantly more positive (Williams).

The Old Dark House finds its home in the genre of horror but also dabbles in comedy. Its forerunners like 1922’s Nosferatu (“Nosferatu (1922)”, IMDb), Frankenstein (“Frankenstein (1931)”, IMDb), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide (“Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide (1931)”, IMDb), and The Mummy (“The Mummy (1932)”, IMDb) marked the emergence of the horror genre.

4.1.1.2. The Queer Characters in The Old Dark House Already the family’s last name, ‘Femm’, of the residents of the dark mansion, implicates a certain queerness that might take place behind its closed doors (Benshoff, 43). Potentially deriving from the French word ‘femme’ (Pons), which translates in English to ‘woman’ or ‘female’, it could be taken as an insinuation that points towards the feminine attributes of the male characters of the house, such as Saul, Horace, or the patriarch of the family, Roderick. However, it is not only the characters of this story that exhibit certain peculiarities, of which the ones found in the majority of the characters do come up as rather obviously queer characteristics. But also, the actors Whale chose to portray his quirky and queer personas of the film, contribute to the

51 | Page

‘gayness’ of certain characters, as some of the male artist were in fact gay, and another was even played by a female actor (Benshoff 41, 43).

Listed below are the queer denizens and guests of the house, which either give off a gay vibe because of the characteristics Whale attributed to them, or resulting from the casting choices made by Whale, or also as in Ernest Thesiger’s/ Horace Femm’s case, both:

1) Roderick Femm: When the audience is introduced to the patriarch of the family for the first time, during the scene in which Philip and Margaret Waverton stumble upon the hidden room after looking for a lamp (as the storm caused the electricity of the house to stop working), it becomes apparent pretty quickly that there is something odd in the appearance of the person laying in the bed.

Before we (‘the audience’) are told who that someone is, their identity is very uncertain, and I actually thought that he was Saul, the crazy sibling who is locked away for the others’ safety and expected something terrible to happen any second. This assumption turned out to be false. At first glance it seemed to be a woman who had grown a beard because of old age, one would assume, but the initially, let’s call it ‘genderless’ person, is revealed as the family’s patriarch. A closer look at the credits of the film and a quick search through articles about the genre and movie, uncovers that Roderick was actually played by a female actress, Elspeth Dudgeon (Benshoff 43). The supposed reason for this, according to Whale, was that he simply could not find a male actor who looked old enough and could bring this character to life (Jim’s Reviews).

52 | Page

The character itself, in my opinion, does not exude such an extreme degree of queerness as others do (which will be analyzed below) but rather the fact that the character is portrayed by a woman adds a gay innuendo to its persona and leaves room for interpretation and the question, as to why James Whale, decided to cast a woman instead of a man for this part. The official reason that he was not able to find a male actor, who looked old enough to portray the part of Roderick Femm, seems like a flimsy excuse.

An answer as to why Whale came to this decision, could have been to show how blurred the line between masculinity and femininity really is and furthermore indicating how fine the line between homosexuality and heterosexuality is. The construction of gender defines how I as woman or someone else as a man have to act and present themselves. But when these definitions do not fit or get mixed up, the lines between the two opposites becomes less distinguishable (Herek 567-568).

The characteristics attributed to a typical male or female are merely normative constructions by society (Benshoff 33). There seems to be this urge in our world to label things, whether it being the sexuality of somebody or a newly discovered country or tribe – names have to be found and characteristics to make it distinguishable from other things have to be assigned. It is the drug of the heteronormative society. If something does not fit its made-up or self-constructed belief system, it has to be either changed until it conforms or labeled as different. Regarding the construction of masculinity and femininity and the importance of labeling what these terms mean, casting a woman for a male part, as Whale did, challenges this very belief system. Providing society with a character that crosses these lines with censors barely realizing what is happening right in front of them. 53 | Page

2) Horace Femm: Ernest Thesiger, who was known for his queer demeanor, played the host of the house, Horace Femm. He was another one of James Whales’ ‘queer friends’, whose specialty was to portray and create campy characters in several of his movies and was known for his “female impersonations” and “queer appeal”. One of Thesiger’s co-stars from Bride of Frankenstein, Valerie Hobson, commented on his persona saying, “I don’t think he had a very strong ‘male’ approach to things!” (qtd. in Benshoff 42). Which reveals a lot about the actor and implies a deviation from the norm.

In Horace’s case it was indeed especially the actor who portrayed him that turned this role into such a queer character. Thesiger’s persona is very present and his queer image is transferred to the eldest sibling of the house.

There is a high degree of ‘campness’ in his portrayal of Horace, which becomes evident through irony and humor which are two features of camp, according to Babuscio. Both can be attributed to ‘camp’, when it “results from an identification of a strong incongruity between an object, person, or situation and its context” (Babuscio 122, 127-128). Horace’s effeminate presence is reflected in his shaky voice and appearance which presents an incongruity to the normative construction of a man. His performance of the worried host of the house who tries to convince the guest that they are not safe if they were to stay because of the servant Morgan and another danger who is avoided to be spoken of, does not convey the seriousness and urgency of the actual situation. This failed attempt alludes to Sontag’s description of camp as a “seriousness that fails” and “the love of the exaggerated” (Sontag). His warnings to the guests, who unwillingly had to stop at the house because of the storm, 54 | Page

seem to be lost in translation because of his camp persona. Furthermore, as described in the sub-chapter ‘Camp’, Sontag refers to the term as an “[…] art that proposes itself seriously but cannot be taken altogether seriously because it is ‘too much’” (Sontag), which perfectly fits Thesiger’s performance in the horror comedy, The Old Dark House and underlines the gay sensibility present in Whale’s film.

3) Rebecca Femm: The part of the almost deaf and religious, short-fused sister was played by actress, Eva Moore. Unlike Thesiger, who was indeed notorious for his effeminate touch, which he also transferred to the personas he embodied (Benshoff 42), Moore was not known to have such a reputation of exhibiting a masculine demeanor that translated to the screen and the characters she played. This comes forward when looking through the other movies she was a part of, playing female characters, who did not exhibit a particular manly persona (“Eva Moore”, IMDb). However, in her role as Rebecca Femm she did have a rather butch appearance that fit the stereotype of an assertive and mannish lesbian (Clarke and Turner 267, 269-270). Especially, when looking at her side by side with the other female characters, her masculinity is even more accentuated through their different appearances (femme and butch) and the opposing color schemes of light and dark. Margaret is clearly marked by wearing a long white dress, and Gladys’ white blouse and black/white checkered dress could both stand for their pureness and femininity. Their outfits are also putting more focus on their female bodies. While, Moore, on the other side, is dressed in all black, hardly showing her womanly figure.

Still, Rebecca’s outer appearance is not the only reason as to why she is labeled as one of the queer characters. According to Stekel’s views on homosexuality, one manifestation of lesbianism is that it becomes evident 55 | Page

through the hatred of the opposite sex, namely men (Benshoff 33). Having said this, her “deep-seated fear” (Benshoff 32) of Saul and also Morgan, in my opinion, could be interpreted in two ways. Here, I want to explore another reading of Rebecca’s fear of the two, which does not support the typical queer interpretation of her being a lesbian: a) If one follows the thought process of psychoanalyst, William Stekel, this fear of the two male villains could be a sign of Rebecca being a lesbian. Particularly her fear of Saul stands out as she keeps insisting on his insanity and the importance of him staying locked away from the others, as he poses a threat to everyone (not just the women). He continues by claiming that the above-mentioned hatred and fear of the opposite sex, is the reason for the development of homosexual feelings and their, as Stekel refers to it “perverse appetites” (Benshoff 33) – again, without fail, providing today’s readers with a typical 1930s- opinion of homosexuality. b) Another way of interpreting Rebecca’s role, breaks out into a totally different direction. Here, I want to distance myself from her being the ‘butch’ lesbian and actually make her the epitome of the heterosexual norm, fighting against the “homosexual disruption”, as Benshoff refers to it (36). I would label the uneven pair of Saul and Morgan to be this disruption, and her attempt to prevent a reunion of the two as the society’s fight against ‘the love that dare not speak its name’. Therefore, Rebecca could be seen as the personification of the homophobic society and Saul and Morgan as the oppressed homosexual couple, who are the outsiders and not allowed to express the feelings they have for one another.

56 | Page

Because of the previously-mentioned reasons, I would interpret Rebecca’s failed attempt to keep Saul locked away and his escape from his imprisonment, as a way for Whale to show that there is no point in denying something (love) that has always been there and that is in fact part of this bigger group because it will fight back and eventually find its spot and acceptance among others. Saul not surviving could be taken as the “obligatory bow to conventions” (Benshoff 37) directors of the time had to make and the rules of society, homosexuals unfortunately had to play by.

4) Saul Femm: When the guests arrive at the old house, the viewer can sense a fear in Rebecca and especially Horace, but the audience is not let in on the secret and reason for them being unsettled until later in the night. As the evening progresses and Saul’s persona becomes more and more alarming to the guests, who were seeking shelter from the rainstorm, the situation escalates when the drunk servant releases Saul from his room.

A queer reading arises here when looking at the brother, who was locked away and according to his siblings embodied the purely evil. With a queer reading this could be interpreted, as discussed above, as the kind of love that deviates from the norm (Saul), which society tries to hide (just like his siblings try to hide Saul) by denying its very existence.

Once freed and after a short deceptive play, he turns out to entirely live up to his reputation and shows the audience the lunatic he is. Now, him upholding this reputation could indicate that homosexuality really is a terrible thing and confirming all the existing prejudices – a road I do not want to go down, as I believe that Whale intended to achieve the exact opposite. To me first and foremost, Saul is a misunderstood character, 57 | Page

who is not accepted by his family because of his differences. Yes, these differences in Saul’s case are rather discomforting and frightening as he is a pyromaniac but that is also how society viewed homosexuality – it was by no means equivalent to pyromania but seemed to cause similar distress when being confronted with it. It was seen as a terrible thing, which could not be tolerated and exactly this distorted view comes forward in Saul’s insanity and the horror he triggers in his siblings and the other guests.

Another connection that can be drawn to society’s perception of homosexuality and the change it was in dire need of during the 1930s can be found in vampirism and more distinctively the narrative style and the change it went through several decades after the first release of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. In Stoker’s tale, the story is told through the victim’s eyes but if you fast-forward to the 1970s the narrator shifts to first person and the story is being told from the vampire’s perspective, as in Ann Rice’s Interview with the Vampire. This shift as mentioned in a previous subchapter (see 3.3.1.2.) could indicate the shift in how homosexuals were perceived. At first, they were topics of conversations and were talked about but later they received a voice of their own and were able/allowed to “speak for themselves” (Dyer 83). This shift is also noticeable in Saul’s character, as he is only being talked about in almost the entire movie, but at the end, through Morgan’s help, he is enabled to speak for himself.

At first, he finds a friend in Roger Penderel, who trusts his innocence, even if just for a short second. But when Saul notices Roger’s disbelief and desperate attempts to find an unlocked door for him and the others to flee the house, his reaction to his ‘friend’s’ infidelity appears to resemble a response of defiance – trying to show Roger how crazy and different he 58 | Page

can really be. Here, I want to draw a comparison to the provocative behavior, sometimes found in groups of oppressed minorities, who want to protest the inequalities they have to face. A prime example for such behavior or outbursts would be for example the Russian feminist music group, “Pussy Riot”, who fight for the equality of women rights with often rather provoking actions (Hewitt). I am not implying that a sexuality deviating from the norm is crazy and close to insanity but that it is unfortunately often viewed as such.

Taking again a look at the medical stance and the queerness of Saul in terms of their views, the hatred of the opposite sex could come into play. William Stekel describes “the homosexual neurosis” as a “flight back to one’s own sex induced by a sadistic predisposition towards the opposite sex” (qtd. in Benshoff 32). This proposition could be applied, as it was done in the previous point to a certain extent to Saul’s sister Rebecca since she is terrified and appears to hate her sibling and also is not too fond of the mute servant, Morgan. However, the crazy brother does not seem to exhibit a specific hatred only towards women, but rather an indifference to his opposite sex, as he is only focused on the male hero, Penderel (the relationship between Saul and Morgan will be described in subchapter 5.1.1.3). Benshoff describes this villainous character as “a repressed homosexual”, who was “paranoid to the point of trying to eradicate the unacceptable object of desire” which appears to be Roger Penderel (Benshoff 45). If he cannot have him, no one will.

5) Morgan (servant): The statue of the tower-like mute servant, played by Boris Karloff, instantaneously reminds one of Frankenstein’s Monster whom he also portrayed. Even though in this film, he comes off as a primitive and brutal supporting role, who does not have an obvious queerness beaming over 59 | Page

his head like a halo as others do, his final scene of the film does open up some questions about his sexuality and his intention with Saul’s corpse, as he carries them away (ScreenPrism).

When closer attention is paid to the character though, some other queer readings or features can be interpreted. One being for example, Stekel’s previously stated theory about homosexuality, which is used as a tool in this analysis to study several guests of the dark mansion. Another element addresses the time frame of his attacks, pointing at where and at which part of day he transforms into his more aggressive self: a) The hatred and fear of the opposite sex as an indicator or trigger for homosexuality, is a recurring theme in this analysis of the characters as it forces one to think critically about what psychoanalysts like Stekel or Freud claimed. Through this, it becomes apparent that such claims (of which many are outdated), even though researched by renowned medical practitioners and psychoanalysts, should be challenged and called into question. When looking at the role of Morgan and his repeated attempts of hurting Margaret, he seems to be the only character, out of the six that are analyzed, that really does have a strong revulsion towards the opposite sex. It has to be mentioned though that he does not seem too fond of any of the characters, whether female or male until the final scene of the movie reveals a deeper connection to Saul, which could also be the reason for Morgan to have released him. b) Richard Dyer describes the attack of the vampire, to take place at night in private, a place where we do not have to hide our true selves (77). Here he draws a parallel to our sexuality, suggesting that like a vampire reveals his identity at night in a private place through his 60 | Page

attacks, people do the same and can take off the mask they wear in public and actually be themselves when they are alone (at night in their rooms), when no one is looking. Morgan is not a vampire but to him, the old dark mansion, seems to be this private place equivalent to the bedroom where he can be himself. At night, though also through alcohol, he can reveal his true self. He embodies the blood-sucking creature when he rages through the night like a vampire and terrorizes the guests of the house but also when he carries Saul’s corpse away to somewhere private, as the audience can assume. I find this connection to the queer immortal very interesting as it opens up a new queer reading to Morgan.

6) William Porterhouse (guest): The queer interpretation of William Porterhouse becomes apparent especially because of James Whale’s choice to cast his long-time friend Charles Laughton for the role. Even though married to fellow actress Elsa Lanchester, Laughton’s homosexuality was common knowledge and his friendship and cooperation with Whale, who was also gay, did not help to hide this tidbit about his private life (Benshoff 41). In The Old Dark House he plays the widower, who arrives with Gladys Perkins at the house to wait for the rain storm to pass, but shows no sexual interest in her. The class difference between the uneven pair offers a plausible reason for the unromantic relationship but the audience is also told that he is still not over the death of his wife, “an ‘acceptable’ reason for lack of heterosexual interest” (Benshoff 44).

However, also his dandy-like dress and demeanor facilitate the understanding of a queer reading which presents itself when exploring the depths of this role (Benshoff 46). Porterhouse appears to be a cultivated gentleman who enjoys making money and is not interested in a new love 61 | Page

interest as he still mourns over the death of his wife. When Gladys and Roger discuss a proper way to tell him about their new-found love, the “faux society lady” (Benshoff 44) refers to Porterhouse saying that he “likes people to think he’s ever so gay” (qtd. in Benshoff 44-45). Knowing about Charles Laughton’s sexuality turns this statement into a “double entendre” which “[…] is typical for the sly gay humor that defines Whale’s ironic sensibility” (Benshoff 45).

Ultimately, giving Laughton the role of a single/widowed man, who enjoys the company of a young, beautiful lady, whom he does not share a romantic relationship with, puts the sexuality of his character into question, which was in my opinion intended by Whale. Also, the last ‘line’ of the film, even though it is only a snore (but a loud one), was given to Whale’s gay friend and was cleverly placed to disrupt the heterosexual declaration of love, when Roger asks for Glady’s hand in marriage. This snore indicates a deeper meaning as it could be taken as a nudge to society showing that homosexuality is still there even if it is silenced and pushed into the world of implications by censors.

The above analyzed characters all exhibit some form of queerness and through their interpretation contribute to the gay sensibility which becomes very clear as they all contribute in a way to raise awareness about homosexuality and its existence, even if the underlying meanings are not as straight forward as compared to recent productions. A gay sensibility that works “as a creative energy reflecting a consciousness that is different from the mainstream; a heightened awareness of certain human complications of feeling that spring from the fact of social oppression […]”. This “consciousness” is particularly evident in Whale’s characters of this analysis and the performance of the actors and actresses (Babuscio 19-20).

62 | Page

4.1.1.3. Interactions that could be Read as Queer All of the following interactions from the movie could easily be read as queer. Although, if someone is not familiar with this field of study or aware of the fact that the director and also some of the male actors cast for the film, like Ernest Thesiger or Charles Laughton were known to be (closeted) homosexuals, one could also argue that none of these instances have a homosexual undertone. Benshoff states, “while the classical horror film encouraged everyone in the audience to understand these narrative patterns from a queer perspective, it was probably easier for homosexual men and women to do so on a more regular basis. Because of their already disenfranchised location outside of the dominant culture […]” (Benshoff 37). Through this “disenfranchised location” of gays, a sensibility of such topics is created and found in the works of directors like Whale, who used this as a way to comment on their lives as part of an oppressed group in a society that does not accept the diversity of sexuality. Such statements about homosexuality and its place in a heterocentrist society had to be cleverly placed and told through implications, as many issues were taboo in film and later even banned by the Hays Code.

1) Rebecca Femm and Margaret Waverton: I chose to pick a different path, as for example university professor Harry Benshoff, who also analyzed the characters of the film in his article, “Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film” and who shared his thoughts on the queerness of the Femm family. To me, there was a different and more fitting interpretation, especially of Rebecca, the religious sister. Namely a, let’s call it in a way, homophobe reading of her. This is why I characterized her as the epitome of the heterosexual norm in the previous subchapter.

63 | Page

Here, I am referring to the scene in the bedroom between Margaret and her, when they are alone, and Margaret begins to undress herself to change out of her wet dress. After telling her about the sins her siblings and father indulged in many years ago and the women who were brought in for their entertainment and strange longings, Rebecca touches the young woman’s chest. She “chastises the heroine’s perceived lack of morality” (Benshoff 44) and accuses her of being godless and “wicked” (qtd. in Benshoff 44) just like her family. This act could be interpreted again in a similar manner.

Benshoff seems to be adamant that this scene could be seen as Rebecca not being able to hide her lesbian cravings for Margaret and the touching of her chest being a lesbian act indicating that she wants to pursue the woman romantically. Indicating that the time has come for her to finally live out the sexual desires, the ones that her siblings and father once indulged in, but she could not be a part of because of her religious beliefs and obedience to God. Benshoff also mentions the “increasingly distorted lenses” Rebecca is shot through and the dialogue between the two woman that supposedly adds to that “perversity” (Benshoff 43), when Rebecca says to Margaret:

You’re wicked too. Young and handsome, silly and wicked. You think of nothing but your long straight legs and your white body, and how to please your man. You revel in the joys of fleshy love, don’t you? (The Old Dark House, 15:45-15:59)

I agree to the scene and the way Whale portrayed Rebecca, being perverse and that a lesbian reading is not too far-fetched, however I would not sign a letter saying, that this instance or her act in general in

64 | Page

some distorted fashion, is that of a lesbian. I would, as already mentioned, propose a rather different interpretation of the scene and the character.

Rebecca repeatedly tells Margaret that her father, brothers, and also her sister Rachel were godless and recounts the lustful acts her entire family, except her, used to be a part of and which took place under this very roof:

They were all godless here. They used to bring their women here. Bracing, lolling creatures in silks and satins. They filled the house with laughter and sin, laughter and sin. If I ever went down among them, my own father and brothers, they would tell me to go away and pray. They wouldn’t tell Rachel to go away and pray [sinister laughter]. And I prayed! I left them with their lustful (red and white?) women. (The Old Dark House, 14:57-15:27)

The way she describes it, the immoral encounters that took place in the house several years ago, resemble a sexual orgy of some kind. She does not explicitly describe same sex relations but to me it is not left out of the question. Her account could insinuate that everyone interacted (sexually) with everyone and even hint at incest.

The exact happenings are, however, not relevant. What is relevant, are that all of these lecherous occurrences that took place, were frowned upon and not accepted. There were also other desires amidst our society that were labeled as unconventional, different, and disgusting. This should ring a bell because homosexuality was characterized similarly (Benshoff 33). William Stekel even associated “homosexuality with epilepsy (which he 65 | Page

understands not as a somatic disorder but as a ‘particular form of hysteria’), as well as with sadism, masochism, incestuous desires, jealousy, paranoia, criminality, and regression to baser animalistic instincts” (Benshoff 32). I am not putting homosexuality on the same level as orgies and incest or other things of the same contents, but it was viewed as similarly terrible, if not worse, by the people who conformed to the heteronormative standards. Rebecca again acts figuratively as the view, society in the 1930s had of homosexuals, which is reflected through her rant about the shameful things her family used to take part in. Her father and all her other siblings were described to enjoy those doings, but she marks it as a sin and disobedience to God, the one she believes in so dearly.

The different lenses Whale used to shoot Rebecca and to set the scene in the bedroom when she recounts the lusty orgies that once took place, made her face appear contorted and warped. Her picture is distorted just like the view people had of the queer community. Believing it to be something awful, revolting, and sinful, even though it is not, and trusting in a system that is so unaccepting of ‘otherness’ that it would virtually turn its back on anyone.

In the same scene, Margaret appears to be appalled by the things Rebecca says to her and of course one could argue that her reaction resembles, also, the view of the heterocentrist world – not accepting that there are other forms of love and to consider it as a medical condition that should not be left untreated. Nevertheless, I would like to believe, that she is in fact appalled by Rebecca’s/ society’s opinions and disgusted by her/its ignorance and intolerance of others’ deviation from the norm.

66 | Page

2) Horace Femm and Philip Waverton: When the lights in the entire house go out they are forced to use candles and the fireplace as their only sources of light. Horace and Rebecca are having an argument about who should get the lamp from upstairs and it becomes obvious that he is striving against grabbing it and tells his sister to go upstairs instead. Stating that he is not strong enough to carry the lamp down the stairs by himself, his sister suggests that Philip should lend a hand and go with him. After heading up the first two flights of stairs, Horace stops and takes a step away from the next stairway. Pointing at a room he says to Philip, “This is my room [Philipp mumbling], there are one or two things that I should very much like for you to see” (The Old Dark House, 35:17-35:23).

If one does not read anything into this and is fine with not even scratching the surface, one could accept that he is simply referring to his own room as he does not want to go upstairs to get the lamp and wants Philip to go to his room with him as there is something he would like to show him. Be that as it may, this offer coming from Thesiger’s character should make the audience think twice about his intention behind this odd proposal from an equally odd character. Whale strikes again with his campy humor. His intention could have been honorable and maybe he simply wanted to waste time and cop out from going upstairs but with a gay sensibility in mind there must be more to this not-so subtle comment.

The discourse about Dyer’s article on the queerness of vampirism talks about a space, where we feel most ourselves, like the bedroom and refers to this safe haven as the “realm of the private”. Furthermore, he also draws a parallel to philosopher Michael Foucault’s works on sexuality, who “considers the sexual to be both the most private of things and the realm of life in which we are most ourselves” (Dyer 77). Now, the scene when 67 | Page

Horace offers Philip to come to his room because there are things he would like him to see, does not sound so innocent anymore, when considering what the bedroom often metaphorically stands for, according to Dyer and Foucault.

An interpretation I would like to present is the one of Horace embodying the LGBTQ community and Philip the oppressing society, similar to Rebecca, who I labeled as the epitome of the heterosexual norm. The host of the house wants to show him is room, his private place but Philip declines and presses the importance of other things that they have to focus on, such as getting the lamp and bringing it back downstairs into the living room. This instance could be understood to show the environment homosexuals had (often still have) to life in. It could indicate, metaphorically, their effort to educate society about there being more than just one type of sexuality and in a way show them their side of the story to gain equality and acceptance among others. Unfortunately, they are not being heard and just like Philip does, these attempts are not labeled as important enough and ignored. Continuing to oppress a part of society that is not just a minority but a socially marginalized group who is denied the most human of things.

3) Saul Femm and Roger Penderel: There are several instances that occur between the two men, Saul Femm and Roger Penderel at the end of the film, which, when factoring in a gay sensibility, can be read as queer. Below I will lay out three specific examples, which emphasize and signify such a sensibility that Whale seemed to work with.

a) After Saul’s release and the revelation of his crazy personality to Roger, he tells the hero the story of Saul and David before he tries to 68 | Page

kill him with a long knife. A book of the bible should not raise a censor’s eyebrow, you might think. But if you take a closer look, you will notice that it is not just any book but the first book of Samuel, which tells one of the rather homoerotic stories and can be found in the old testament.

The story revolves around Saul, a troubled King, who “is filled with envy and self-pity” (Graham) who continuously tries to kill David even though he envies him or even loves him in some twisted way (Bible Gateway 1 Samuel 19 NIV). David on the other hand is filled with “only love and forgiveness (Graham) and even after the many attempts of killing him, decides to spare the King’s life (Bible Gateway 1 Samuel 24 NIV). The dynamic between the two biblical characters is similar to Saul and Roger, who also share analogous personalities. Saul Femm, taking on the evil and envious role trying to murder the other and Roger the merciful hero, who, I assume, would have also spared the villain’s life if he did not have to fight for his own life after Saul attacked him. Benshoff’s description of Saul, which states that he is “a repressed homosexual”, who was “paranoid to the point of trying to eradicate the unacceptable object of desire” (Benshoff 45), becomes very fitting, once one knows the background of this biblical story.

The relationship between Saul and David, though, is not necessarily the one why many scholars have discussed queer readings of this story (Harding 3). David’s bond with Saul’s son Jonathan appears to be the one that caught the attention of many. Passages like the following two contain several items that could easily be interpreted with a gay sensibility:

69 | Page

After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt. (Bible Gateway 1 Samuel 18: 1-4)

Some phrases that could stick out to a queer reader in the verses above are for example the uses of the word “love” and when Jonathan undresses himself and hands David his belongings. Saul’s son is described to love “him as himself” and that David shares the same feelings for Jonathan. The love these two have for another could be simply the one of close companions but a reader of the 21st century with a certain background or sexual identity could certainly interpret it as a romantic kind of love (Harding 3).

Then Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said, “Go, carry them back to town.” After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most. Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, for we have sworn friendship with each other in the name of the Lord, saying, ‘The Lord is witness between you and me, and between your descendants and my descendants forever.’” Then David left, and Jonathan went back to the town. (Bible Gateway 1 Samuel 20:40-42)

70 | Page

The phrase that catches the eye in this passage of the first book of Samuel and which I would label as a ‘queer item’, is the kiss they share before they part ways. Also, this instance could be read queer if it was interpreted by modern-day society.

The two mentioned passages from the bible give much weight to the claim that the story of Saul and David is indeed one with a homoerotic undertone and Saul Femm telling it adds to the queerness of his character and the scene between him and Roger Penderel. b) After telling Roger Penderel the story of Saul and David, he attempts to kill Roger by throwing a long knife at his head. He misses the hero’s head, which results in Saul attacking him with a chair. Choosing a phallic object to kill the other male character could also suggest a gay reading to this scene. Whale could have used anything but instead he decided on the one object that could easily “resemble or represent a penis” (dictionary.com). There is an irony in the fact that Saul chooses a phallic symbol. This type of irony is also described in Babuscio’s and Sontag’s take on camp and is a great instance of the director’s campy black humor. c) The third queer aspect of the final scenes between the two men is when Saul bites Roger during their fight. This takes place on the upstairs balcony when, Saul presses Roger against the handrail and chokes him. He then suddenly buries his face in his opponent’s neck and starts biting him until Roger manages to push him away. As discussed in the subchapter on Dyer’s queer vampire article (see 3.3.1.), a bite is of sexual nature and somehow acts as a kiss in disguise. According to Richard Dyer, it would be “almost perverse not to see it as one”, referring to the obviousness of a bite being indeed a 71 | Page

sexual act (75) and it also being an “extension obviously analogous to other forms or oral sex acts, all of which […] involve contact not only with orifices but with body fluids as well” (76). The sexual nature that is attached to the concept of a bite gives weight to the presence of a gay innuendo as one man is biting another and creates a rather clear queer reading in the scene on the balcony.

4) Morgan and Saul Femm: The mute house servant and the crazy brother can be linked, as both are outsiders and deviate from the norm. Their villainous sides seem to be the reason why they are not accepted by their family and others. Similarly, to the queer society that is also not acknowledged because of their differences. Both appear to have different objects of desire – Morgan keeps an eye on Margaret and even has to be locked away by the other men after several attempts of attacking her, and Saul tries to kill Roger after his release. This could mean that they are both longing for someone they cannot have, and their reaction could be an outburst of jealousy and neglected feelings. The ending of the film suggests otherwise though and indicates that they are in fact a queer couple which was able to reunite at last.

At the end of the film, when Morgan tenderly carries Saul’s corpse away, is the above discussed instance that leaves the audience with much room for interpretation and even hints at necrophilia (Benshoff 43). Morgan being the one to release him from his imprisonment suggests that he was Saul’s only companion. The picture of the close relationship the two must have had becomes much clearer, when he even loses interest in Margaret after she tells him about Saul being hurt too. He immediately let’s go of her and rushes over to his friend. He drops to the floor and is visibly deeply hurt, while cradling Saul’s dead body and holding him tight. The 72 | Page

audience can hear him whimper, showing a more human side of him for the first time. Almost unable to move, he slowly rises from the floor and carries his partner upstairs. What happens once they are alone is not shown but I would not suggest necrophilia as Benshoff did but rather believe that Morgan simply wanted to mourn in peace over the loss of his only companion and love.

Apart from the final scene, when they reunite, even if it is through death, there is another part of the movie, which already hinted at a relationship between and Saul and Morgan. During Saul’s and Roger’s first encounter, the wicked brother cries out, “And Morgan. I tell you he’s terrible. Morgan bites me. (Roger gets up) Don’t leave me! Stay with me!” (The Old Dark House, 59:50-59:57) and holds on to Roger as he comes rushing back. I have discussed the sexual nature of a bite and that it resembles a kiss (Dyer 75) in several other instances but also here it suggests a queer reading and points toward a romantic relationship between the two characters of Morgan and Saul.

The two villains of Whale’s horror flick are definitely a couple, a horrifying one and perhaps not as beautiful as Roger and Gladys or Philip and Margaret, but they found a kindred spirit in one another, which really is romantic in a twisted and unconventional way. Even if only through death and grief, they were able to find each other. A gay sensibility, which becomes clearer and clearer in Whale’s film, picks up on such a doomed love and understands that a love like this, not supported by society or the own family, nevertheless exists and has its beauty, however monstrously depicted.

Love is not easy – it never is but it should be supported and accepted, even if it does not conform to one’s beliefs. 73 | Page

4.1.1.4. The Villains of The Old Dark House The Old Dark House is the home to two villains, even though one of them seems to me more dangerous than the other. The house servant Morgan appears to be only a moody brute who is not interested in the interaction with other people and is described to not do much damage or harm to anyone unless he starts drinking. The old classic is a horror movie though, so it is needless to say that Morgan does in fact indulge in some alcohol and reveals his more aggressive self, his own worst enemy. The tragedy begins to unfold, and he has to be locked in the kitchen for the other’s safety.

The other dangerous character is Saul Femm, who I would mark as the actual villain of the black and white film. He as opposed to Morgan, starts out as a mysterious character as he is only spoken of. A person who must be so terrible that he shall not be spoken of reminded me, as a modern-day audience, of another villain whose name shall not be mentioned. This is certainly a very subjective interpretation, but it caught my eye immediately and I had to think of Lord Voldemort and the dangerous aura that surrounds him and his name. Another parallel to this person could be drawn to Saul’s obsession with Roger Penderel (similarly like Voldemort who is obsessed with Harry Potter), who is the hero of the story after overcoming the attack and indirectly killing the villain (as they fall down the balcony and only Roger survives) (Rowling). This connection could indicate to a modern audience how horrendous he must be and that the audience should fear him. The fact, that the audience does not come face to face with Saul until the last fifteen minutes of the film and is continuously warned about the danger the guests would be put in if he escaped, adds to his villainous persona.

4.1.1.4.1. Characteristics of the Gothic Villain The Old Dark House’s Saul fulfills several character traits that usually mark a gothic villain (see 3.2.3). One of these characteristics is the attempt of 74 | Page

deceiving the hero into believing their innocence to get their sympathy. By achieving this, the villain appears to be one step closer to get what he wants and to disrupt the peaceful order of things. Just like Saul achieves by telling one of the guests, Roger Penderel he isn’t mad and that his siblings are lying and are in fact the denizens the guests should be afraid of instead of him:

Saul: Please don’t touch me.

Roger: What is it?

Saul: Listen, don’t put me back. Don’t let them put me back. I’m not mad. I swear by all heaven, I’m not mad. It’s just that they’ve locked me up. They’re all wicked.

Roger: Why should they lock you up?

Saul: They’re frightened of me. I know something about them. Years ago they killed their sister Rachel. But I wouldn’t tell. I promised I’d never tell.

Roger: And they’ve kept you here all that time for that?

Saul: And Morgan. I tell you he’s terrible. Morgan [bites?] me. (Roger gets up) Don’t leave me! Stay with me!

75 | Page

Roger: Well, that’s alright. You sit here and wait. I’ll be back.

(The Old Dark House, 59:21-1:00:05)

During this first interaction between Saul and the hero, we are shown a different side of the locked-up brother – cheating the audience’s expectations of him. He appears weak, desperate, and frightened of the people who kept him locked away in his room. There is sincerity in his voice making his act convincing to the viewers. I actually did believe that Saul was not the mad lunatic his siblings described him to be, as especially his sister Rebecca seemed capable of the things Saul accused her of. Immediately after Penderel checks the doors and gives off the slightest impression that he does not fully trust the things Saul told him, his reaction to Roger’s infidelity is an instantaneous change in the villain’s posture and facial expression and especially his voice, hinting at his crazy side resurfacing and revealing his true mad identity. Here, giving his internal moral struggles away through his physiognomy.

Another characteristic that Saul fulfills, is that the gothic villain’s or monster’s physiognomy is generally not appealing to the reader or audience. They should be appalling, which is reflected as mentioned above, in their physiognomy. Saul is short and mad looking and adding to his exterior, Whale also gave him a quite sinister and creepy voice. Thus, creating discomfort in the audience every time he speaks. As suggested in the above paragraph, there is a change in Saul after his evil persona comes forward and this is reflected in his appearance. This claim fits both villains of The Old Dark House, as also Morgan is a rather hideous looking character. The mute

76 | Page

servant, who towers over the guests of the house, also reminds one of Whale’s iconic giant, Dr. Frankenstein’s monster.

4.1.1.4.2. Queer Characteristics of the Gothic Villain There is no typical dynamic of a master and servant (Benshoff 36) in The Old Dark House. Even though Morgan is the butler of the house, he is not specifically Saul’s servant but rather answers only to Horace and Rebecca. However, the relationship between Morgan and Saul, which especially comes to the surface towards the end of the film, suggests a small parallel to this characteristic. Both exhibit a queerness as they quite obviously deviate from the norm, not only because of their physiognomy but also their behavior is rather unusual, and they clearly stand out when being compared to the ‘normal’ guests. It is not only their outer appearance and evil acts, which would be a reason to label them as queer or different but the relationship that is described in the aforementioned analysis of the queer interactions also suggests a reading of homosexual nature.

The second feature of a queer villain that is mentioned, is the presence of a heterosexual couple, whose harmony is disrupted by the homosexual force. In The Old Dark House, these ‘normal’ couples are Margaret and Philip, and Gladys and Roger, of which the latter one is attacked. Usually the villain tries to kill one person of the happy couple, but a queer reading arises again in this film, when the mad brother decides to choose the male instead of the female of the twosome as his victim. Other instances and actions of this gothic villain like telling Roger that he loves him, recounting the story of Saul and David, and biting him during their fight, are all elements that could be read as queer.

The end of the plot is usually marked by the defeat or death of the monster and the reunification of the heterosexual couple who have managed to 77 | Page

overcome their queer experience (Benshoff 35-36). Applying this to the ultimate villain of the film, Saul shows clear connection to the elements discussed by Benshoff. Saul attacks Roger, one half of the heterosexual couple, and choosing the male as previously mentioned adds to a queer interpretation of the villain. The death of Saul which is brought about by the falling off the balcony during the fight against Penderel also fits these features. The final reunion between the ‘normal’ couples and the engagement between Roger Penderel and Gladys Perkins marks the overcoming of the queer interruption.

4.1.1.4.3. Does the Villain match the Gothic Villain? After comparing and analyzing the characteristic of a typical gothic villain with the evil spirits that roam through the old mansion, it does become apparent that most elements are present in the two characters of Morgan and Saul.

Saul, who I marked as the ‘actual’ villain meets all of the mentioned traits of a gothic and queer villain, as he deceived his victim, has an unpleasant appearance and demeanor, polarizes through the presence of a heterosexual couple, and has only person in his corner, who in the end turns out as the only person who loved him.

Morgan, does not fulfill all of the requirements or typical characteristics that are described in the chapter on the gothic villain. I would claim though that he his purpose in the film is to serve as a supporting role and therefore also acts as a supporting villain to Saul, and helps create a doomed love between the misunderstood, monstrous couple that reunites even through death.

78 | Page

5. Conclusion

Conclusively it has to be said, that even though the era, James Whale’s horror movies were produced in did not accept the queer community and its representation in the media, especially homosexuality in film, a gay sensibility can be detected and comes to the surface if watched by an audience who are familiar with that kind of sensibility through their own “disenfranchised location outside of the dominant culture” (Benshoff 37).

Explicit instances of homosexual acts or behavior were prohibited which resulted in them being pushed into the realms of implication, making the representation of the topic merely connotative but nevertheless, even if it was just for a long second, the ‘monster’ was let out of its closet. Although, to please the censors, the filmmakers and writers of the time had to end their tales with killing their queer villain, which was “an obligatory bow to convention, transparently intended to disarm the moralists who might otherwise have tried to suppress […]” (Benshoff 37) those works. Still, it was Whale’s work which, in a time of oppression, ignorance, and lack of knowledge, gave the queer community a voice, even if it was only a whisper.

Film after film, such as Whale’s The Old Dark House, the ‘queer monster’ was taken out of the closet and the message it conveyed was crucial to closeted gays and the era of the 1930s because this period marked a lack of representation of this minority that deviated from the norm. In a culture that was preoccupied with conforming to the normative rules imposed on them (Bullogh 903), as mentioned above, the portrayal of homosexuality and the ‘monster’ had to be then placed firmly back in the closet for the “reinstatement of heterosexual norms” (Benshoff 37). Even though, he had to be careful with this revolutionary work in the film industry, he still managed to address such forbidden topics in several movies that he

79 | Page

produced. Unfortunately, it was this boldness and courage that caught up with him, and in the end, cost him his job (Russo 45).

Cleverly placed jibes against society, like “giving the last ‘line’” (Benshoff 45) of The Old Dark House, even though it was only a snore, to the character William Porterhouse. This simply decision of the director to place a distracting snore, during the engagement of the heterosexual couple, is like a tap on society’s shoulder showing that even if homosexuality is ignored it is still there.

I would like to end my diploma thesis with a passage from Lord Alfred Douglas’s poem, “Two Loves” as it is still fitting to the representation of homosexual love today:

‘Sweet youth, Tell me why, sad and sighing, thou dost rove These pleasant realms? I pray thee speak me sooth What is thy name?’ He said, ‘My name is Love.’ Then straight the first did turn himself to me And cried, ‘He lieth, for his name is Shame, But I am Love, and I was wont to be Alone in this fair garden, till he came Unasked by night; I am true Love, I fill The hearts of boy and girl with mutual flame.’ Then sighing, said the other, ‘Have thy will, I am the love that dare not speak its name.’

(Douglas)

80 | Page

6. Bibliography

Almendarez & Hall. Hollywood, Censorship, and the Motion Picture Production Code, 1927-1968. Archives Unbound. https://www.gale.com/binaries/content/assets/gale-us-en/primary- sources/archives-unbound/primary-sources_archives- unbound_hollywood-censorship-and-the-motion-picture-production- code-1927-1968.pdf. Retrieved April 7, 2018.

Babuscio, Jack. “Camp and the Gay Sensibility.” Camp Grounds: Style and Homosexuality, by David Bergman, University of Massachusetts Press, 1994, pp. 19–38.

Barson, Michael. James Whale: American Director. https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-Whale. Retrieved February 13, 2018.

Bauer, J Edgar. “Third Sex.” Glbtq, Glbtq, Inc., 2004, www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/third_sex_S.pdf.

Benshoff, Harry M. Monsters in the Closet: Homosexuality and the Horror Film. Manchester University Press: Manchester and New York, 1997.

Bible Gateway. HarperCollins Christian Publishing, www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+19&version=NI.

Bible Gateway. HarperCollins Christian Publishing, www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+24&version=NI.

“Bride of Frankenstein (1935).” IMDb, IMDb.com,

81 | Page

www.imdb.com/title/tt0026138/?ref_=nv_sr_7.

Bronski, Michael. Culture Clash: the Making of Gay Sensibility. South End Press, 1984.

Bullough, Vern, and Bonnie Bullough. “Lesbianism in the 1920s and 1930s: A Newfound Study.” Signs, vol. 2, no. 4, 1977, pp. 895–904.

Clarke, Victoria, and Kevin Turner. “V. Clothes Maketh the Queer? Dress, Appearance, and the Construction of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities.” Feminism and Psychology, vol. 17, no. 2, 2007, pp. 267– 276., doi:10.1177/0959353507076561.

Cox, David. The Danish Girl and the sexologist: a story of sexual pioneers. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2016/jan/13/magnus- hirschfeld-groundbreaking-sexologist-the-danish-girl-lili-elbe. Retrieved February 15, 2018.

Curtis, James. James Whale: A New World of Gods and Monsters. University of Minnesota Press, 2003 (first published 1982).

Del Valle, David. “CURTIS HARRINGTON ON JAMES WHALE | Films In Review.” Films In Review RSS, 29 Nov. 2009, web.archive.org/web/20120603224330/http://www.filmsinreview.com/ 2009/11/29/curtis-harrington-on-james-whale/4/.

Doty, Alexander. Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Culture. Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Douglas, Lord Alfred. “Two Loves.” Poets.org, Academy of American Poets, 82 | Page

27 July 2015, www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/two-loves.

“Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0022835/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.

Ellis, Havelock. Sexual Inversion. 3rd ed., vol. 2 6, Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company, 1915.

“Eva Moore.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/name/nm0601196/.

“Film/DVD: Review - The Old Dark House.” Jim's Reviews , 25 Dec. 2008, jclarkmedia.com/film/filmreviewolddarkhouse.html.

“Frankenstein (1931).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0021884/?ref_=nv_sr_3.

Graham, Ron. “David's Adventures.” Simplybible.com, Ron Graham, www.simplybible.com/pdf/f623-toi-adventures-of-david.pdf.

Harding, James E. The Love of David and Jonathan Ideology, Text, Reception. Routledge, 2016.

Herek, Gregory M. “On Heterosexual Masculinity.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 29, no. 5, 1986, pp. 563–577.

Hewitt, Rachel. “Riot Days by Maria Alyokhina Review – Pussy Riot and the Essence of Protest.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 30 Aug. 2017, www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/30/riot-days-by-maria- alyokhina-review-pussy-riot.

83 | Page

“How Legal Tide Turned on Same-Sex Marriage in the US.” BBC News, BBC, 26 June 2015, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-21943292.

“It Happened One Night (1934).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0025316/?ref_=nv_sr_1.

“It's in His Kiss!: Vampirism as Homosexuality, Homosexuality as Vampirism.” The Culture of Queers, by Richard Dyer, Routledge, 2002, pp. 70–89.

Jagose, Annamarie. Queer Theory: an Introduction. New York University Press, 1996.

“James Whale: Of Monsters, Melodrama and the Production Code .” Harvard Film Archive, hcl.harvard.edu/hfa/films/2009julsep/whale.html.

“Magnus Hirschfeld, the Founder.” Making Queer History, 15 Apr. 2016, www.makingqueerhistory.com/articles/2016/12/20/magnus-hirschfeld- the-founder.

Mancini, Elena. A Brighter Shade of Pink: Magnus Hirschfeld, the Third Sex, and the Sexual Freedom Movement in Germany. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey: New Brunswick, 2007.

Mank, Gregory William. Karloff and Lugosi: The Story of a Haunting Collaboration. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1990.

Marshall, Bridget M. “THE FACE OF EVIL: PHRENOLOGY, PHYSIOGNOMY, AND

84 | Page

THE GOTHIC VILLAIN.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), vol. 6, no. 2, 2000, pp. 161–172. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41274102.

“North by Northwest (1959).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0053125/.

“Nosferatu (1922).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/?ref_=nv_sr_1.

“Phallic Symbol.” Dictionary.com, Dictionary.com, www.dictionary.com/browse/phallic-symbol.

“PONS Online-Wörterbuch.” Online-Wörterbuch Von PONS, de.pons.com/%C3%BCbersetzung?q=femme.

Rice, Anne. Interview with the Vampire. New York: Knopf, 1976.

“Riverdale (TV Series 2016–).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt5420376/.

Robertson, Eloise. “12 Awesome And Inspiring LGBT+ YouTubers!” BuzzFeed, BuzzFeed,www.buzzfeed.com/ellelouweese/12-awesome-and-inspiring- lgbt-youtubers-1srsf?utm_term=.xyK019yEW#.odwWbpPvy.

Rowling, J. K., and Jim Kay. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Bloomsbury, 2015.

Russo, Vito. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies. New York: Harper & Row,1987. 85 | Page

ScreenPrism. “James Whale and the Queer Delights of The Old Dark House.” ScreenPrism, screenprism.com/insights/article/queering-classic- hollywood-james-whale-and-the-queer-delights-of-the-old-da.

Stoker, Bram. Dracula. Oxford University Press, 1983. (First published 1897.)

Sontag, Susan. “Notes on Camp.” Susan Sontag: Notes On "Camp", 1964, faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Sontag-NotesOnCamp- 1964.html.

"The 100 best horror films". Time Out.

The Gothic Villain Essay. https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Gothic-Villain- PKR5EN3VC. Retrieved February 16, 2018.

“The Motion Picture Production Code.” 31 Mar. 1930, pp. 593–596., www.asu.edu/courses/fms200s/total- readings/MotionPictureProductionCode.pdf.

“The Invisible Man (1933).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0024184/.

“The Mummy (1932).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0023245/?ref_=nv_sr_5.

“The Old Dark House (1932).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0023293/?ref_=nv_sr_1. 86 | Page

Warner, Michael. “From Queer to Eternity.” Village Voice Literary Supplement, no. 106, June 1992, p. 19.

Time Out. https://www.timeout.com/london/film/best- horror-films. Retrieved February 13, 2018.

“Vertigo (1958).” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/?ref_=nv_sr_1.

Whale, James, director. The Old Dark House. 1932.

Wilde, Oscar. The Picture of Dorian Gray. 1891. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.

Williams, Karl. “The Old Dark House (1932) - James Whale | Review.” AllMovie,www.allmovie.com/movie/the-old-dark-house-v36123/review.

87 | Page